TIFF #8: The protest: A change of mind

Unfortunately, in politics these days there's not much room for the sensible position: Both the Israeli and Palestinian authorities are too beholden to the extremists in their societies, and both are responsible for the misery inflicted upon people in the region.

The protestors' argument is akin to saying you support Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan because you include "Triumph of the Will" and "Birth of a Nation" among your Great Movies.

"Earth is originally a green oasis with no need for national borders; it is the venue for the shared existence of humankind, the embodiment of our common destiny. The times demand that we rethink the questions: to what end national identity? to what purpose national borders?"...Daisaku Ikeda

Mr. Ebert, the boycott is more than just against Israeli policies. It is against the existence of the State of Israel. By focusing on Tel Aviv, the boycott implied that even undisputed Israeli cities with both Arab and Jewish citizens who enjoy equal protection under Israeli law are illegitimate. Nobody except Hamas would share this point of view.

I also know, Mr. Ebert, that you share my distaste for the death penalty. You will be glad to know that Israel does not practice the death penalty. That's right. The death penalty is illegal in Israel, even to convicted terrorists. Not one person of any nationality, race, or religion was executed in Israel since the Palestinian territories came under Israel's control.

These protesters are either anti-Semitic or they are extremely foolish. I won't guess at which, but seeing that Ms. Fonda and the others have not criticized Sudan for the genocide unfolding, China for its treatment of the Tibetans, Iran for gunning down dissidents, Saudi Arabia for its treatment of women, and a number of other unsavory countries leaves me with an uncomfortable question. Why did Ms. Fonda and the others choose to make so much noise about a small, liberal democracy with a fair, if not perfect, record on human rights?

My understanding is that the protesters are emphatically not calling for a boycott of the films themselves, or of the City to City programme, but are rather merely publicly expressing their displeasure with TIFF's decision to examine Tel Aviv as a cultural entity apart from the political context in which it is situated. They view this as part of a larger campaign by Israel to burnish its image abroad without actually making the sort of political decisions through which it could legitimately earn itself an improved reputation.

Thank you for this. It means so much coming from you, and as usual, you said it far better than I ever could have.

In my experience, boycotts like these serve to indiscriminately demonize one party in a conflict, not to enable dialogue and further a solution. Invariably, the people advocating these actions have little to no knowledge of the people, products and ideas they are denying themselves, or the dynamics of the conflict into which they are inserting themselves.

We are indebted to you for pointing out the self-aggrandizing, morally problematic nature of this protest. Your post should be required reading for the many who would boycott Israeli artists, athletes, academics and scientists (talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face!), all of whom are often on the cutting edge of reconciliation and joint work with their Palestinian neighbors.

I also thought you'd appreciate this classic video clip which attempts to make your point about the self-defeating nature of broad-brush boycotts in a more humorous fashion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbIQto3KPUM

Here is a link to the Toronto declaration. The word "boycott" does not appear in the document. http://torontodeclaration.blogspot.com/2009/09/toronto-declaration-no-celebration-of.html

In fact it clearly states

"We do not protest the individual Israeli filmmakers included in City to City, nor do we in any way suggest that Israeli films should be unwelcome at TIFF."

Mr Ebert, you either did not read the declaration, or willfully misrepresented it. Here are some Jewish communities that support the protest.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-minkin/atlanta-jews-reject-vilif_b_285755.html
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/t/9047/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1433

Hi Roger,

Brave. Bravo.

I have many thoughts on this. But, the first among many thoughts is the question:

Is the protest comparable to the Olympic boycotts in 1980 and 1984, in the sense that the athletes get caught in the middle? I'm wrestling with that question.

Omer M

Hear-Hear.

Though I remain a patriot, I'm no longer a nationalist. Individuals are the really important thing, and I can only imagine the hurt and helpless feeling of someone who has been caught up in this kind of protest. To have been delegated the scapegoat is so terrible. But isn't it always the case that the artist is made the easy target? They not only create the symbols of our cultures, they are the symbols of our cultures. We are used to seeing outside forces attacking art. The politicians, the priests, have always thrown a disproportionate amount of blame at their feet. However, it's particularly disturbing to see the artist attack the artist, the film maker attacking the film maker. At the very moment when we need more and louder voices to create connections between our morality 'groups', there always seems to be this angry set of self appointed border guards, acting to keep us separate and at odds.

Wow. Very well done, sir. You've perfectly articulated an argument I've been spinning around in my head since I heard word of the protests.

Were it not for the likely descent into all-out pettiness that would ensue, I'd think a counter-boycott of the films of Mr. Mortensen, Mr. Glover, et al might be in order.

I've read a fair amount about the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, and know so little. So, I have no comment, other than to agree with you about artists.

Reading your list, I'd like to find Bena somehow to watch. It would strike a chord with me, I think.

Aside from this controversy, are you enjoying yourself at the festival?

Randy

Would Roger have had a problem with the boycotts in South Africa? None other than Nelson Mandela, a man who knows a thing or two about apartheid, has said that Israel's system of apartheid against the civilians in Gaza is worse than the apartheid in South Africa.

I didn't see the award-winning documentary "Occupation 101" on Mr. Ebert's list of movies. I hope he finds the time to watch it someday.

I am ashamed to say that the only Eytan Fox film I have seen is 'Yossi and Jagger' but I did find it very very moving, and a very down to earth evocation of conflicting desires (in this case love and war, rather than opposing sides but still relevant I feel.)

Artist's freedoms matter very much. I think Brecht would agree.

Oddly enough your mentioning of this phrase 'You showed us what would happen if we would stand before each other, Jews and Arabs and look each other in the eye."

reminded me of a book I read today on an impulse- Christopher Isherwood's 'My Guru and his disciple' (the books I read often fall into my hands or are given by the most unlikely people,) in which the Hindu swami when he was a young monk was sitting on a train and a Hindu priest next to him groped him. Two Muslims sitting opposite him, saw this and politely invited him to join them instead (the swami would not eat with them though). The swami told this story as a way of explaining that lechery can exist in all. Isherwood silently felt that for him the story illustrates what strange circumstances are needed for barriers to break down (I believe this was in the 1930s or so.)

Apologies for this rambling comment. I have not slept in four days now and am feeling light headed. If anyone on this comments has a cure for insomnia that does not involve the old panaceas of lavender/milk/tablets/warm bed and all the typical reliefs, then please find the kindness to tell me :)

Roger, do you understand the statement made by Naomi Klein and others?

They are questioning whether Israeli artists have a right to express themselves.

They are protesting the SPOTLIGHT on Tel Aviv, almost a year after Israel killed around 300 children and upwards of 800 civilians...

The BLOCKADE of Gaza is STILL going on. Collective punishment on 1.5 million people.

And your throw-away line about the conflict is noted.

There would be no Jewish State without the vast injustices and atrocities committed towards the INDIGENOUS population - the Palestinian Arabs.

700K Palestinians were ethnically cleansed from both sides of the partition plan. This was not an accident. Obviously, Israel immediately refused to allow people their RIGHT to come home!

This is the injustice the Palestinian people will never forget.

So your moral outrage over a DECLARATION that this festival is being used as a propaganda tool for the Israeli government (AFTER it goes out and slaughters 1500 Palestinians) to boost it's horrible image - is disgusting!

Who is the victim in this conflict? Surely there are individual victims on both sides, but when we judge relative injustices, when we judge both societies in how they have suffered, when we take into account the history of the conflict - WHO is the victim?

Israel is the 3rd or 4th most powerful military in the world. It is a regional superpower.

They only got to where they are by feeding off the misery of the Palestinians. Just look at the WATER distribution in the Occupied territories.

NO, Roger. You are wrong. The REAL problem is how uneducated most Westerners are on this issue.

The organized Jewish community and certainly Zionists (no matter their background) regularly employ EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL to stop any kind of SINCERE discussion on what is going on 'over there'.

But hey, I remember when you did your show on racism in the 90s w/ Siskel. You went through all the minorites and when you got to Arabs and Muslims you JUSTIFIED the hatred against them!

Just look at the history of portrayals of Arabs and Muslims in Hollywood. There is DEEP-SEATED hatred of them in the American intellectual culture.

And people like YOU Robert, with your power and prestige facilitate that by your inane political posturings which are NOT informed at all!

Of course I would never expect someone in the mainstream media to be honest on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Ebert: I most particularly did not ever justify hatred against Muslims and Arabs.

I agree with you about the Palestinians, and Israel's treatment of them. There will never be peace in the Middle East until Israel reverses its policies regarding them.

To target Israeli artists is counter-productive.

Roger Ebert, you should read this piece on the topic at Torontoist.
It's one of the best pieces I've read about it. I was honestly disappointed that you, who have eloquently championed some progressive and worthwhile (and, sadly, controversial) things like Ben Stein's strange journey among the intelligent designists, health care for all and labour rights disagree with those who are also controversially struggling for justice in that land. I'm not just saying that. My face fell when I saw "A destructive protest."

Is the TIFF city spotlight part of the "Brand Israel" campaign? Is it appropriate in the same year as the Gaza massacre and continued brutal Israeli blockade of Gaza? It really has to be remembered that this is not a call to boycott the film festival, to remove those films, or Israeli films in general. There are discussions of boycott (cultural, economic or otherwise) and how that can be legitimately, ethically and reasonably pursued among some activists on this issue, but the TIFF protest is not about that. It is specifically about that city to city spotlight, with the mayor of Tel Aviv coming and its unclear connection to the Israeli government PR campaign.

As Noami Klein said in an excellent interview on Monday:

"AMY GOODMAN: Respond to Ivan Reitman, the film director, who said, “Film is essentially about telling global stories, of exploring the complexities and contradictions of the human condition. Any attempt to silence that conversation, to hijack the festival for any political agenda in the end, only serves to silence artistic voices.”

NAOMI KLEIN: You know, I would actually agree with that statement, but it isn’t us who did that. We didn’t politicize the festival. We objected to the politicization of the festival. We’re not trying to silence anyone, but simply voicing our opposition to the festival’s decision to grant Israel this special status.

You know, when—we looked into this whole rebranding strategy. Jewish Voices for Peace, the terrific anti-occupation, San Francisco-based organization, jvp.org, they’ve done a—produced this great document, a fact check of all the lies that are being spread about our campaign that I really urge people to look up. But they talk about—they have some documents talking about this rebranding campaign and the goals of it. And they quote a top PR official in Israel, saying that the real goal is to create “a narrative of normalcy”—that’s a quote—“a narrative of normalcy around Israel.” So, you can have a tiny little compartment where you can criticize Israel’s actions in Gaza or the expansion of settlements, but when it comes to every other part of Israeli society, we have to act like nothing is going on; we should, of course, celebrate Tel Aviv in a film festival and at book festivals, and so on, and promote Israeli tourism."

"Yeah—is that they convinced themselves that it was normal just to have a celebration for the city of Tel Aviv in this of all years. And when people objected to that, led by Palestinians, they turned around and said, “You’re politicizing the film festival,” because I think they have really convinced themselves that there is nothing abnormal about this decision. And we’re saying, if this were any other country, it would be so obvious that this was a political decision that amounts to taking sides in a conflict.

And to just give you one example, imagine that this year the Toronto International Film Festival had decided to have a cinematic spotlight, a cinematic homage, as Ha’aretz described this program, on the city of Colombo, with the full blessing of the Sri Lankan government, overwhelmingly Sinhalese-dominated, not a single Tamil director, just as there’s not a single Palestinian director in this spotlight. Now, Toronto has a huge population—a huge Tamil population, very active. They would have been protesting outside, because it would have been perceived as a sort of a whitewash in a year that the Sri Lankan government rightly stands accused of war crimes."

Very sensible sorting out of this whole thing. I'd heard of the protest and it's supporters but not the specifics of the whole thing. I think you're right, and The Band's Visit is wonderful, very funny film that to an American feels very accurate about interaction between people in this situation. I have a friend who has told me he believes it is impossible for an Israeli to make a film that is not about war or the divisions amongst people in that area. I don't think that's wholly inaccurate, but films like The Band's Visit and the ones described in the TIFF program seem me like an exploration of people and characters and not the politics that define their day-to-day lives. As much as I admire many in the protesting group, they seem to have picked the wrong thing to fight.

(Side note: are you aware the last few blog posts haven't shown up on the sidebar at rogerebert.com? I thought that was strange...)

Roger,

You're lying to your American readers...
Or you're misinformed about what's going on.
___

What's at issue is the 'Toronto Declaration':
http://torontodeclaration.blogspot.com/2009/09/toronto-declaration-no-celebration-of.html

This was an open letter signed by folks you mentioned (Mortenson, Christie, Glover, etc.).
Joining them were over 1000 artists from North America, Europe, & ISRAEL itself!

THEY NEVER CALLED FOR A BOYCOTT OF OTHER ARTISTS OR FILMS.

They clearly stated:
"We do not protest the individual Israeli filmmakers included in City to City.
Nor do we in any way suggest that Israeli films should be unwelcome at TIFF.
___

The signatories do have a problem with TIFF's bosses.

TIFF singled out Tel Aviv, & promoted it as "a young, dynamic city that, like Toronto, celebrates its diversity".

In reality, this city serves as the pseudo-capital of a nation that recently murdered over 1000 Palestinians in a bloody assymetric war. ArchBishop Desmond Tutu has this crazy idea that there's some APARTHEID going on there...anyways...

Ask Viggo, Naomi Klein, or any of the signatories.
They have no problem with TIFF screening these films.
They do have a problem with TIFF's timing & idiotic marketting.
___

So again, please get the facts straight before lecturing your intelligent counterparts in the arts community on "censorship".

Ebert: I used the word boycott without thinking. I agree it is not a boycott, and have removed the word from my entry.

"The Band's Visit" was one of the finest films of the past decade.

The recent brouhaha surrounding Tel Aviv's getting the spotlight treatment at this year's festival is ridiculous. Guilt by association is the first refuge of the hateful.

finally someone is not afraid to say what has to be said.

Are you suggesting that there shouldn't be protests?

By all means, let everyone protest what they want to protest! Just as you write your observations of the event, so they are allowed to communicate their support or opposition to any deeds. Once those ideas are out, they can be challenged, tested and discussed and hopefully resolved.

That being said, I highly doubt that the actors and actresses protests for and against will change the situation in the Middle East, which is the core of their protests Only by their work can they give a different perspective. Perhaps show a side of an issue that a person had be ignorant.

I know I was extremely touched by Waltz With Bashir: It showed me that there is an awareness among Israelites-and that it's coming from a generation that had not directly suffered under the Holocaust.

Is the answer to your caption question, "Nothing" ?

I'm leaving for Toronto tomorrow to come and see the U2 concert but I'm going to ask my Toronto friends about the festival since I'd love to wander around and, if I can't participate since I get the sense that everything's all filled up, just experience the vibe from out on the road or something. Maybe nod hello to this guy whose stuff I enjoy reading.

You shame the list of boycotters, well done. The list the Star gave: (Harry Belafonte, Jane Fonda, Viggo Mortenson, Julie Christie and Danny Glover), is a list of people I respect, esp. recently Mr. Mortenson. I hope your shaming gives them something to think about, because every one of this list are thinking people and should know better.

Well done, sir, well done.

Miles Blanton

And if I may be so bold (quoting "Move Over Mrs. Markham"), do you have any favourite Friday festival films to recommend from the schedule?

Gee, Roger, hopefully you're not drinking the Zionist Kool-Aid. You're there on site at TIFF and you know the protesters have made it crystal clear THAT IT IS NOT A BOYCOTT.

From the Jewish Voice for Peace website:

"Stand by over 1,000 cultural producers who have signed on to the Toronto Declaration which objects to the Toronto International Film Festival's celebratory spotlight on Tel Aviv. Such a celebratory honor is part of an explicit, openly-stated Israeli effort to divert public attention from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem. It does not call for boycott and it does not delegitimize Israel."

When a cultural event is hijacked for propaganda purposes, and 1,000 artists courageously stand up to protest that -- at the risk of being blacklisted in Hollywood -- that's the part of the story you should be writing about. Not providing misinformation about a fictitious "boycott."

Join the 10,000 concerned citizens who stand with the courageous signatories of the Toronto Declaration. Sign the petition!

http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/301/t/9047/p/dia/action/public/index?action_KEY=1433&start=25

Ebert: The use of the word boycott was a careless one on my part and I have removed it from my entry.

Years ago, a filmmaker friend of mine put a sticker on his camera: "This machine kills fascism."

Ebert: Borrowed from Pete Seeger's banjo.

John Greyson is listed on the Toronto Palestinian Film Festival site as being on their “Advisory Board”, nuff said.

To: Dan Kelly

Don't put Mr. Mandela on a pedestal. He knows what it's like to be boycotted because of his support of Fidel Castro (here in Miami, goggle it).

I work in downtown Toronto, and during the last week or so, I've been walking by the Scotiabank Theatre and hearing the most wonderful sound: people talking about new movies with excitement in their voices!

Trying to jam politics of any stripe into that just irks me.

I am confused by the comments (yours included, Roger) regarding the Israeli "treatment" of the Palestinians in Gaza. I have been to the region, experienced the environment firsthand. While I am terribly saddened that thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of people just trying to live their lives in peace are affected by the turmoil in the region. It was once open land. Israelis walked and shopped freely in Gaza and Palestinians walked and shopped freely in nearby Israeli towns and villages. But then the Hammas was elected (freely, by the people) to power. Borders were made and armed. Then rockets began to fall at random on those nearby Israeli towns. There is a power station in nearby Ashkelon (Israel). The Israeli government has agreed to supplying power to all of Gaza from this source. Hamas rockets even fall here . What would they gain by cutting off electric power to their own people? I suspect they do not care. I suspect they would blame Israel for more hardship upon their people.
The Palestinians of Gaza have the power to help themselves by denouncing the actions of the Hammas and ridding their territory of them.
I submit this for your consideration: Your neighbour's child continues throwing rock's at your children, and at times causing injury. You ask your neighbour to stop the child from throwing stones but it continues. You ask again and the neighbour only says their is nothing he can do, thus allowing the child to continue throwing rocks. You call the police but they say their is nothing they can do. This goes on for many months, pehaps years. How long do you think it would be before you retaliated? And with what pent up emotion?

I agree with the general sentiment of the so-called Toronto Declaration. The policies and practices of any nation should not be immune to any criticism, and, indeed, any such criticism should not be construed as being anything more than that; for example, the questioning of the legitimacy of that nation. There have been compelling arguments on both sides, whether or not I may find them personally agreeable. Unfortunately, this episode has somewhat soured my hometown's film festival - Toronto's gift to the world of cinema - and the protest has turned into a runaway train, bringing some of the bigots out of the woodwork, only too happy to demonize all Jews or Muslims to suit their intolerant view of the world.

This protest is misguided. Or do people like Fonda and Glover really believe that the TIFF City-to-City is going to actually, as one of the earlier readers said, "divert public attention from the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem."

Honestly, most of the world isn't aware of TIFF or following what is going on. That isn't a slam but just the truth. And if they are aware of TIFF, and of the history in the Middle East, odds are that City-to-City isn't going to make them forget about what happened recently, any more than it'd make them forget about the numerous wars that have occurred there as well.

And whether the protesters realize it or not, and no matter their statements and protestations to the contrary, you cannot protest against City-To-City without bringing Israeli artists into it, even tangentially. When you use phrases like "complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine", you thereby include all Israelis in that statement since the word "government" is notable by its absence.

Robert Lantos summed this whole idiotic affair perfectly: "Israel is the only state in the Middle East where a gay film like Greyson's could be shown. His hypocrisy is mindboggling."

great post, but you have opened a can of worms. As a playwright who fiercely supports the Palestinians' struggle and movement for their own homeland but also someone who supports peace for both Israelis and Palestinians, this issue makes me uncomfortable. I just don't know what to think.

It's not fair to target Israeli artists and filmmakers who are just trying to make art and have nothing to do with the Israeli government's atrocious actions against Palestinians. but then again, why should Israel be allowed to have a film festival, when they should be told that what they are doing to the Palestinians is MURDER?

I have no idea how the ordinary Israeli citizen feels about Palestinians and their struggle for to get back their homeland.... this controversy reminds me of how the world boycotted South Africa's apartheid regime in the 1980s.

but can Israeli people be compared to the racist white Afrikaans? I really don't know.

Ebert: I used the word boycott without thinking. I agree it is not a boycott, and have removed the word from my entry.

You may want to strike out this phrase as well:
From the article: These are the films the protesters don't want to be shown. These films, by these directors -- because they live in a country whose policies the protesters disagree with.

The same thing happened this year at Edinburgh, when Ken Loach kicked up a storm when the EIFF accepted a grant by the Israeli government to send a director over for the screening of her film "Surrogate." Here's a link to the story: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6322826.ece

Luckily, the EIFF paid themselves for the director to come over, and I was present at the screening. The film was brilliant, in my opinion. You're completely right: artists should be part of the solution, not the problem.

I read Toronto Declaration. They have some points, but it is wrong to block the chance to see good movies. I had very good time "Band's Visit", "Lemon Tree", "Jellyfish", "Noodle", and "Waltz with Bashir"(one of movies in my personal Top 10 list) in 2008, but those good moments with them are not spoiled by what Israel has been doing. However, if "Waltz with Bashir" had won Oscar, I would have expected something from acceptance speech.

Sir, I have read up on this issue and after many hours of considering it...have came to the conclusion that you are wrong. You are wrong, but you essentially stand for what is right. I agree with your statements about artistry in your blog, but I feel as if you haven't posted the entire situation. The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

Depends what you mean by `country`. If you are referring to social history then of course all artists are of, and with, a country. This doesnt mean they support that country, do PR for that country, are aligned with the dominant powers of that country. However, if, by `country` you are referring to government, then hopefully all artists are without country. Do you see, sir, how this differentiation informs your perspective?

Props to the posters presenting the full and accurate picture re the TIFF protest.

Roger, I agree with you probably 99% of the time. But I cannot agree with you here, and I feel you are very mistaken about the nature of what's actually going on. I believe this must be because you aren't aware of the background regarding the festival's decision to participate in the Brand Israel public PR campaign launched in Toronto by the Israeli government, and I hope that after hearing the details about that PR campaign, the festival's decision to participate in it, and the actual motives and actions of the protesters, that you will change your mind and back the protests either because of the specific nature of their concerns, or at least broadly back their opposition to the overt politicization of art and film festivals.

The protest is NOT targeting the Israeli filmmakers, but rather are due to the explicit context of the showcasing of Israeli films.

It's important to remember that the Brand Israel campaign was launched -- by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs -- in Toronto, with advertising and other outreach in Toronto to help promote a positive image of Israel and to counter the international opposition to Israeli policies (particularly in response to the attacks in Gaza and the attack and invasion of Lebanon). The film festival chose showcase Israeli films exactly coinciding with the start of the Brand Israel campaign -- this was done in conjunction with the Brand Israel campaign. The festival is overtly participating in the political campaign, and cannot avoid the direct political implications of that move.

The protesters are rightly angered that the festival would chose to make such a direct alignment with the political campaign, and it should in fact be MORE disturbing to you to see artistic endeavors so clearly being used as part of a manipulative political advertising campaign, and not simply as an example of celebration of pure artistic expression. It's impossible to divorce the festival from its place within the advertising campaign, and so the films are presented in the context of being vehicles toward the goals of that political PR campaign.

Whether or not one can ignore the broader political campaign and simply view the films for their own artistic merit (which is of course possible), that is apart from the fact of the festival's own intentions and role in the political campaign. That role deserves to be protested, and that's why it's the focus of the protests and the films are not.

I hope you will look deeper at the direct link between the festival's decision to actively participate in promotion of the Brand Israel campaign, and recognize the cynical and manipulative nature of that decision, and see why it is far more of an oppressive weight upon artistic expression than the protest targeting the explicit context of the festival's decision.

There is a BIG difference between showing Israeli films or highlighting Israeli artists, and actively doing so as part of a political campaign to improve Israel's global image in the aftermath of terrible crimes against humanity and oppressive brutality against civilians. The artists didn't align with the political campaign, but the festival did and has cast the filmmakers' work explicitly within the context of that political campaign.

In light of that political context to the festival's decision, I wish some of the Israeli artists would likewise withdraw and boycott their films being used in such a purely political and cynical fashion -- even just a public statement divorcing their films from that context, and asking that their films NOT be viewed within or used by political marketing.

Artists cannot just ignore -- or expect the rest of us to ignore -- their responsibility for their work being promoted in such a fashion, and their own role in helping such promotion is very real when they remain silent about the explicit political nature of the situation. They can achieve the same artistic expression and promote their films entirely outside of such context, even with just a simple public statement rejecting any role for their work as part of a political PR campaign.

Those things -- political context, direct festival participation in a political PR campaign, and the role and silence of the artists in question regarding the politicization of their artistic work and the festival -- are all far more detrimental to true artistic expression and freedom than the protests against such cynical public manipulations by the film festival hand-in-hand with the Israeli government.

You mention the comparison to a boycott against U.S. films -- if the U.S. State Department launched a Brand USA campaign to improve the image of the U.S. during the invasion of Iraq, and a film festival in Europe participated in assisting that political PR campaign by showcasing Washington, D.C. filmmakers at a festival in the same city where the Brand USA campaign was launched, there would absolutely be protests against the festival's decision -- the festival, not the artists in question. But if the D.C. filmmakers chose to remain silent in the midst of this protest, and didn't recognize the direct politicization of the festival and how that politicization was using the films to help promote the agenda of the Brand USA campaign, they would likely be criticized for their silence and for any comments they made in opposition to the protest against a clear political decision by the festival to help promote the Brand USA PR campaign.

When considering what truly endangers artistic expression, what truly threatens the freedom and exchange of ideas, I cannot understand how anyone can ignore the danger posed by the pure politicization of the festival through linking it to a nation's political PR campaign. Israeli filmmakers could be showcased apart from such a politicized agenda, and the filmmakers could publicly comment on the protests with intellectual honesty that recognizes the politicized nature of the festival's decision and the Brand Israel campaign -- but neither is the case, and instead the criticism is being leveled against protesters whose true purpose and actions are not being accurately understood or characterized, while the purpose and actions of the festival are likewise misunderstood/mischaracterized or simply unmentioned and ignored.

You have said repeatedly that the protests target ARTISTS, and that is absolutely not the case at all -- are you saying that when artists participate in a demonstrably, explicitly political PR campaign for a nation, that the forum itself (rather than the artists) is not open to legitimate protest? The forum is the target of protests, not the artists. You might feel that it's impossible to protest the forum without inherently having an impact on the artists, but that would mean politicized forums that take art and use it as a vehicle for political PR campaigns are exempt from opposition and protest of the PR campaign and from protests explicitly against politicization of artistic expression. And again, there is the question of the responsibility of artists who not only allow their art to be featured in a political PR campaign to promote a nation-state's public image, but also their responsibility for their silence during the overt politicization of their art and their occasional public comments in support of the politicized festival setting.

The venue is the target of protests, for its linkage to the Brand Israel PR campaign. The artists are participating AND either remaining silent about the honest truth regarding the political use of their art in a PR campaign, or are openly speaking negatively about the protests and defending the festival's politicization of their art. Yet despite these latter facts about the artists, the protests remain focused on the venue itself for participating in a PR campaign. It is unfair and inaccurate to say the artists are being targeted, or that protesting politicization of art for a PR campaign is more destructive than the actual festival decision to participate in that political PR campaign.

And finally, by way of comparison, if Hamas had launched a PR campaign to improve their image in the aftermath of their violent, horrible crackdown against female Palestinians who attempted to form human rights groups protesting Israeli attacks (yes, Hamas brutally put down attempts by Palestinian women trying to form a women's group in opposition to Israeli policies, as insane and seemingly counter-productive as that sounds, due to their religious views against women in such roles), and if that PR campaign were launched in Toronto, and if the film festival had actively joined the PR campaign by showcasing Hamas filmmakers to assist the PR campaign, I would support protesting the festival's politicized decision in that instance as well.

I've thought of a couple of much better comparisons that I think might have more influence on your thinking about this matter, Roger.

During your time on "At the Movies", what if the same Brand Israel PR campaign were launched in Chicago, with months of PR and so on to promote a positive image of Israel, and ABC had told you they wanted you to use your show to highlight Israeli films in conjunction with the PR campaign? Would you have agreed? If you'd refused and been told by ABC to "sit-out" that episode of the program, replaced by another film critic, and "At the Movies" had indeed gone on to showcase Israeli films in support of the Brand Israel PR campaign, how would you have felt about the use of the show for that political purpose? And how would you feel about viewers who protested that episode of the show, if they explicitly stated they were not protesting the films being highlighted but rather the use of the show in conjunction with the Brand Israel PR campaign? If viewers refused to watch that episode, or asked advertisers not to place ads on that episode?

Another comparison regarding the politicization of art in general:

What would you think of a music concert held during the recent "Tea Bag Protest" campaign against health care reform in D.C., if musicians came to the outdoor mall area by the U.S. Capitol and performed music at a concert arranged in conjunction with the campaign? No songs about health care reform, but a lot of music hosted right in the midst of the "Tea Bag Protest" and clearly in conjunction with the conservative groups promoting the protests? Would you feel the artistic expression of the musicians was more important, and that protesting the concert was worse and more offensive and damaging? Even if the protests were against the staging of musical events to support the political campaign, and not directly protesting the specific musicians (although in this case there is an even clearly direct link to musicians participating in the event, of course)? What if musicians were simply invited to perform at this concert irrespective of their personal political views or the style of their music, just to come and perform, while only the event itself was geared toward supporting the political campaign overall? Even though the musicians could say that they are not supporting the Tea Bag event or the message of that campaign, what if the musicians not only didn't criticize the political aspect of the concert but also DID criticize the liberal etc folks outside the event protesting against the Tea Bag campaign?

Would you not feel that despite the artistic nature of music going on within the concert itself, and that despite whether or not the actual individual musicians might not support the anti-health-care-reform campaign, that the protests against the actual political nature of the event itself were worthwhile and legitimate? Or would you think that protesting a politicized event containing artistic expression is still more damaging and destructive than the political aspect of the campaign and the use of art to promote the political event and political message?

I hope that in these examples, particularly the one related to your own show, will encourage you to reconsider you feelings on this matter and see the distinction between protesting artists and protesting a politicized event that's manipulating and using art to help promote a specific political campaign, and even if you disagree with the viewpoint of the protesters in terms of their political views regarding Israel that you will still be able to respect why they are protesting and not think it's more destructive than the politicization of art through a politicized festival coordinated with a political PR campaign.

Guy wrote: "By focusing on Tel Aviv, the boycott implied that even undisputed Israeli cities with both Arab and Jewish citizens who enjoy equal protection under Israeli law are illegitimate. Nobody except Hamas would share this point of view."

Entirely false, of course. There is broad international belief that there is GREAT dispute regarding many and sometimes most Israeli cities. Moreover, Arab citizens do not enjoy "equal protection under Israeli law", as there are -- as anyone familiar with the situation and Israeli law knows -- specific legal preferences given to Jewish citizens of Israel and denied to Arab citizens who are non-Jewish. The assertion that anyone who shares these viewpoints must be "Hamas" is a typical method of trying to slander anyone holding those views, and equating them with a disparaged organization or group, and is an entirely illegitimate form of discussion and debate.

Guy wrote: " Not one person of any nationality, race, or religion was executed in Israel since the Palestinian territories came under Israel's control."

Demonstrably false. Execution shootings of Palestinians -- frequently children -- are well-documented, including by AP photographers and videographers (who typically tend to not publish the images, although many times they eventually leak out anyway). Israeli military and police enforcement of laws and rules targeting Palestinians includes the frequent shooting of unarmed people, as when soldiers open fire on an entire group of children after one or two of the group throw rocks in the direction of a tank. Those shootings are to kill, very frequently result in death from head-shots or torso-shots, and are in accordance with laws and rules of engagement put in place by the Israeli government. That makes them executions. The number of such occasions is staggering.

Guy wrote: " These protesters are either anti-Semitic or they are extremely foolish."

The slanderous refrain that protests against Israeli policies or the Israeli government are automatically "anti-Semitic" is an all-too-common lie. The notion that one must be either a racist or very dumb to hold such views or engage in such protests is an illegitimate way to discuss and debate. I am pretty sure that if I said "anyone opposing these protests is an Arab-hater or a fool" that you'd be rather offended. What if every instance of the slanderous accusation of anti-Semitism as the motive for protesting Israeli war-crimes and brutality were met with the counter-accusation of Arab-hating (and of course, Arabs are Semitic people, so we could rightly argue that modern usage of the term "anti-Semite" should perhaps be equally applied to any criticism of Palestinians, if we were to match slander with slander)?

Guy wrote: " Why did Ms. Fonda and the others choose to make so much noise about a small, liberal democracy with a fair, if not perfect, record on human rights?"

To call Israel's record on human rights "fair" is laughable. The body of evidence debunking that assertion is large and readily available, but is sadly not commonly mentioned or discussed in mainstream society.

As for why protesters "choose to make so much noise" about Israel as opposed to this or that other nation, first of all the existence of other human rights abusers does not negate the legitimacy of opposing a particular human rights abuser -- we could always point to another example of anything bad, and claim that lack of action against that example negates legitimacy of action against any other, but that would be a rather absurd and intellectually dishonest argument to make.

More to the point is the fact that my tax dollars aren't supporting the government in Sudan. I'm not sending money every month to help buy the bullets and rockets and bombs, to build the prisons and walls, in Sudan.

But every month my taxes are taken by the federal government, and my money adds to every other U.S. taxpayer's money to support the Israeli government and military, to fund the killing and beating and oppression of Palestinians. My government has actively defended and supported the Israeli government, not just with my money but with the entire resources of my government. That makes me accountable, and it demands that I oppose and resist my own role and my government's role in supporting and assisting those actions and policies in Israel. My government publicly endorses and excuses and defends those Israeli actions and policies.

Karl-Heinz wrote: " But isn't it always the case that the artist is made the easy target?"

The artists are not the target, as has been repeatedly noted.

Anonymous wrote: " The protestors' argument is akin to saying you support Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan because you include 'Triumph of the Will' and 'Birth of a Nation' among your Great Movies."

If this were World War II, and someone hosted a film festival to showcase Nazi Germany films in conjunction with a German PR campaign to improve Germany's image in the world, then yes it would be accurate to say that hosting a film festival to highlight German films as part of a German PR campaign would be supporting the Nazis. What you think of the films themselves is apart from what you think of a festival featuring those films to help a political PR campaign.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Roger's blog about the protest is placing focus on the artists and their work. And, it focuses on the humanity of the stories.

I'd like to see a road movie featuring Hiam Abbass (the mother in "Paradise Now") and Ronit Elkabetz (the female lead in "The Band's Visit"). One of my students commented (unless I misunderstood her) that they were the same actress, and when I saw the films, I thought the same, only to be pleasantly surprised that they were not. Go look at pictures of them to see the similarities.

Anyways, the comments posted above (and probably below) are illustrating the age old problem with discussing anything that involves the Israelis and Palestinians: it is next to impossible.

And, among those who have made the conversation impossible are:

1- Specific individuals of influence who have jammed the debate.

2- The rest of the participants who somehow believe they are solving things by joining the shouting match, somehow believing that the best shouters will win.

3- The people of religion who have subverted and prostituted their religious beliefs to allow or compel people to take sides. Even worse, they've hid under their hypocritical religious robes to overlook the blatant hypocrisies and atrocities in the situation.

4- And then, there are those people (including many of the above) who somehow think that lying, massaging facts, and vilifying the Other will solve anything.

It is next to impossible to have this discussion because participants and interlocutors are not only taking sides -- thus drawing lines in the sand -- but are often demanding that others take sides. It is impossible because everything that loosely might relate to the issue is then conflated to become central to the issue. I've sat in classes at elite Universities, where otherwise tame students would take over the class and turn an otherwise tame class into a shouting match. I've seen the same in houses of worship.

The conduct and confusion of such people is only surpassed in ridiculousness by their sheer shortsightedness and delusions of grandeur. Meaning if you're a participant in the decades long shouting match, understand that you're not solving anything. You're not saving any Palestinians that way, and you're not saving any Israelis. Rather, you're alienating people who could/would have otherwise listened to you.

I would even give a list of examples calling out the repeated inconsistencies and hypocrisies of the shouters in these discussions, but we know that's not going to accomplish much. We cannot make those who have chosen to be deaf to hear. We cannot awaken those who believe that they are wide awake, but are sound asleep.

Having said all that: to the Jews who are reading this, I send you best wishes regarding the High Holy Days. To the Muslims, make your prayers tonight on what might be Laylat al-Qadr, and further, Eid Mubarak. And, to everyone else: best wishes also.

Omer M

To target Israeli artists is counter-productive.

Israeli artists aren't being "targeted." The hope of protests such as this, and boycotts for that matter, is to bring as much attention to the issue as possible. In the case of boycotts, often otherwise "innocent" people are hurt by the actions initially, but the hopeful outcome is that they then will begin to put internal pressure on the state being protested or boycotted, and that in turn will lead to changes in hearts and minds.

However Israeli artists or citizens are hurt by a protest, or even a boycott (I support a boycott on Israeli products and American firms that do business in Israel), it's laughable to even put it in the same moral hemisphere as what has happened to the Palestinians since Israel's inception.

Please watch Occupation 101.

To LD above,

Regarding this point: "But hey, I remember when you did your show on racism in the 90s w/ Siskel. You went through all the minorites and when you got to Arabs and Muslims you JUSTIFIED the hatred against them!

Just look at the history of portrayals of Arabs and Muslims in Hollywood. There is DEEP-SEATED hatred of them in the American intellectual culture."

I'm intentionally taking this small passage out of your large post because you're specifically directing it against Ebert. Your point is wrong here. For starters, go online and look at Siskel and Ebert's review of "The Siege," but listen carefully to Ebert's comments. In fact, I'd suggest that Ebert did a bit of a disservice by focusing on the politics of the movie, while Siskel focused on the movie itself. And, then go look at Siskel & Ebert's review of "Malcolm X."

And, if that's not enough, I sat in Ebert's class when he commented on "Not without my Daughter," saying that it unfairly vilified a population of people (and that was similar to what he said about "The Siege").

Omer M

On removing the word "boycott"
1. It is not sufficient just to remove one word. Your entire article is based on the false premise that the protest is against Israeli art. The protest is against the sleazy politicization of an art event.

2. It is good internet manners to append a note to the body of the original article indicating that the original text has been changed.

Read the Declaration again, Roger, and you'll see how you've distored the nature of this protest:
http://torontodeclaration.blogspot.com/2009/09/toronto-declaration-no-celebration-of.html

In 2008, the Israeli government and Canadian partners Sidney Greenberg of Astral Media, David Asper of Canwest Global Communications and Joel Reitman of MIJO Corporation launched “Brand Israel,” a million dollar media and advertising campaign aimed at changing Canadian perceptions of Israel. Brand Israel would take the focus off Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and its aggressive wars, and refocus it on achievements in medicine, science and culture. An article in Canadian Jewish News quotes Israeli consul general Amir Gissin as saying that Toronto would be the test city for a promotion that could then be deployed around the world. According to Gissin, the culmination of the campaign would be a major Israeli presence at the 2009 Toronto International Film Festival. (Andy Levy-Alzenkopf, “Brand Israel set to launch in GTA,” Canadian Jewish News, August 28, 2008.)
***
We do not protest the individual Israeli filmmakers included in City to City, nor do we in any way suggest that Israeli films should be unwelcome at TIFF. However, especially in the wake of this year’s brutal assault on Gaza, we object to the use of such an important international festival in staging a propaganda campaign....

Roger, not only was the use of the word "boycott" careless, your entire entry indicates that you either did not read and comprehend the Toronto Declaration or that you are intentionally misrepresenting the signatories.

Not only should the word "boycott" be dropped, but you should rewrite the entire entry or write a retraction. You can't leave such false charges against noted artists and filmmakers standing. Man up for making a serious mistake.

You write a great deal about the Israeli films being shown, but the Declaration was not opposed to the films. Leaders of the Declaration have made that clear in their follow-up interviews, even expressing admiration for some of the films you also praise.

What was being objected to was the public relations campaign surrounding Tel Aviv, in particular the slogan, "Tel Aviv is a young, dynamic city that, like Toronto, celebrates its diversity" and the fact that the TIFF spotlight on Tel Aviv fits into the Israeli government's broader propaganda strategy to portray the country as "normal" when even you admit the situation is anything but normal.

Yes, Tel Aviv is busy celebrating its diversity and dynamism while at the same time shrinking its Arab neighborhoods. Not a single Arab-Israeli filmmaker was included in the program.

The Toronto Declaration is not trying to exclude artists. Quite the opposite, if anything, it is stating that the Toronto program should have been more inclusive.

Propaganda is not art. It is sad that you have confused the two.

Ebert: I used the word boycott without thinking. I agree it is not a boycott, and have removed the word from my entry.

But without `boycott` your piece doesnt make sense. Unless you are against the politicization of the festival, in which case you have a beef with the TIFF organizers. Pundits are not journalists.

I'm sorry, but when you saw the list of artists who had signed, did it not tip you off to look into this further?

I understand with the festival going on, things are hectic, but these days any issue arising out of Israel or it's policies merits careful consideration instead of what you are tacitly confessing was a knee-jerk response. The festival's organizers got roped into a PR campaign and apparently don't have the stones to back out due to the heat the Jewish lobby brings to issues.

It's ironic that there are 22 Arab countries in the middle east, and only one Jewish state, but the Arabs want to obliterate Israel from the map -- either literally, with bombs, or by overtaking the population of Israel so there are in a majority and can do with Israel what they want.

Love live Israel! Let the Philistines make do where they're at, or move to one of the other 22 Arab nations.

Roger, I read the petition on Viggo's website.

You obviously know nothing about the history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. If you did, you'd recognize that the petition in and of itself is a piece of propaganda, claiming that building the city of Tel-Aviv displaced Palestinians. It didn't. Tel-Aviv was built on 12 acres of sand dunes that were purchased by Jews in the early 1900's. That's history 101.

This really isn't about the film's connection to any Brand Israel campaign. If it was, and that's what the petition emphasized, that would be fine. Instead, it lies about basic history, and categorizes the Gaza/Israel war as a massacre. Sorry, it was much more complicated than that.

Oy vey, you love Jewish humor as purveyed by the kvetching stereotypes of Hollywood. And films that emphasize jewish guilt over violence. But you have no sympathy for real Jews fighting for the right to live in their homeland.

To categorize it in the kvetching stereotypes you seem to love so well: feh.

Hi Roger,

Even more brave. Bravo even more.

Here, I praise you for correcting yourself. I don't know the details of what has transpired, so I'm not asserting that your opinion is more or less in agreement with my own views. Rather, how rare is it in our society that someone speaks up with an unpopular opinion, and how rare is it that that person corrects himself when appropriate (even when that correction might be more unpopular).

Anyways, America might finally be taking the next steps in the necessary race discussion. Someday, a lot of people will be taking the next steps in the Middle East discussion.

Omer M

I was sure that this was just a case of you not realizing more of the background details of the situation, and that once you did you would think "Whoa, what the heck was the festival thinking??" Thank you so much for looking into it further, and I am happy that your view of the situation evolved (oh no! not that word!) as more information was shared with you. And thank you as well for stating that you do feel the festival should not have aligned itself with a political PR campaign in this way. Much respect, Mr. Ebert.

One of the unfortunate side-effects of this situation is that attention has shifted away from the artistic work of good filmmakers, something that could have and should have been avoided. Once the political decision was made, however, this side-effect became sadly inevitable. One way to help shift focus back to the artists would be if the Israeli filmmakers came out with statements similar to yours, and stated publicly their regret that their films -- and the festival process of recognizing and making available these films -- were made hostage to a political agenda that had no place in this artistic arena.

Such statements, and an attempted outreach to the protesters demonstrating understanding of the opposition to the politicization of the festival, might go a long way toward helping convince the festival to publicly distance itself from the Brand Israel campaign, and put the focus back where it belongs -- on films and artists, on outreach between different communities, and on art helping to overcome obstacles to peace and understanding.

Again, thank you for listening to those of us here trying to explain the deeper context, and for your decision to state your own change in viewpoint regarding the festival's decision. I hope others will be as brave in stepping forward once they have all of the information, and try to find a way to resolve the situation.

Roger, I don't think you managed to achieve fairness in your revised entry, either. You state as fact a link between "Brand Israel" and the City to City program, but the festival has specifically denied this:

"The City to City series was conceived and curated entirely independently. There was no pressure from any outside source. Contrary to rumours or mistaken media reports, this focus is a product only of TIFF’s programming decisions. We value that independence and would never compromise it."

Isn't it tiring, all of the useless, senseless hatred in the world? I taught at a school in Dubai in 2003 and noticed that all the world maps had Israel scratched off by fingernail. I was naive, or uneducated at that time, and asked a Palestinian co-worker what happened to the maps. He said, "Do you think that Israel is a country? No, no, no. Of course not. Didn't you know that?"

I had so much "You must hate Israel" put into my brain by my friends over there. I heard so much so often that it began to shape the way I thought about Israelis. Yes, it filled me with an ounce of the venom that Palestinians feel toward them. Teaching in the Middle East, there are certain words that you just do not say. Israel and Jewish are two of them. Sometimes the English learner books have those words in them and a frigid air invades the classroom. I swear, that frigid feeling must be similar to teaching kindergarten in the US and having a student inquire the meaning of that word from "Atonement."

I just happened to move into an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn in 2007. Joe and Bibi, the young couple upstairs, would invite me up every weekend for homemade dinner. They had a sign on their wall that read, "Israel is home." I learned all about Jewish life from them. For example, they are not allowed to adjust anything electrical or mechanical on weekends, so if a light is on, it stays on. If a light is off, it stays off. It was subtly hinted to me that they would really love it if I could figure out what they might like turned on or off. Neighbors used to shout through the window of another home, "Is the non-Jew there?" Basically I was recruited as the light and stove switcher onner/offer. They said that I might make a decent living in the neighborhood as a weekend toilet flusher. Turned out that one was a joke; toilet flushing is given a religious allowance. What joyful, funny, witty people. When I moved away, they gave me 100 dollars and refused to take it back.

If I had never gotten so close to Jews, all the poison might have stuck in my brain and put a squeeze on my heart. If I hadn't gone to the Middle East, I might be tempted like others to think of Arabs as psychotic terrorists.

It's so easy to be led into racism and hatred, when you're surrounded by it on a consistent basis. I can't imagine what it would take for an Israeli or Palestinian to go to the core of their soul and fix their hatred. Actually, I do. It comes from seeing people as individuals. It comes from a little light that opens us up to the possibility that someone we think we hate so much that we don't want to understand, might be worthy of respect.

I watched "The Band's Visit" with a Saudi. That was nice.

"I refuse to label people. We're all just people made out of the same old dirt. And God didn't make any junk." - Tammy Faye

Ebert: Tammy Faye was right. "The Eyes of Tammy Faye" is a terrific doc, by the way.

I believe that if a religion doesn't include respect for other religions as one of its tenets, it is a sorry religion indeed.

David wrote: "the petition in and of itself is a piece of propaganda, claiming that building the city of Tel-Aviv displaced Palestinians. It didn't. Tel-Aviv was built on 12 acres of sand dunes that were purchased by Jews in the early 1900's. That's history 101."

Apparently you missed the last day of class in history 101. Tel-Aviv was built on the edge of the city Jaffa, but expanded and displaced Jaffa and its Arab residents. Within five years, that "12 acres" had expanded to almost 250 acres and continued to expand. To claim it didn't displace Palestinians is to willfully ignore history 101.

"it lies about basic history, and categorizes the Gaza/Israel war as a massacre. Sorry, it was much more complicated than that."

Sorry, a massacre is a massacre. And what happened in Gaza -- not to mention elsewhere, including Southern Lebanon -- was a massacre. There are no "lies" about basic history, you're just exhibiting selective memory (or selective memory of history 101).

"But you have no sympathy for real Jews fighting for the right to live in their homeland."

Well, I suspect you don't want to get into a real debate about the honest truth regarding "fighting for the right to live in their homeland," lest we necessarily note that the establishment of Israel required the original supposed Biblical massacre to take the land from those who were at that time calling it their own "homeland", and then again when Palestinians were driven from their own "homeland" to allow for the establishment of Israel. If we are to talk of "homelands" and the right to live in one's homeland, let's do so bluntly and honestly, and consider just whose land is where, what makes it anyone's homeland, and exactly what the rules are allowing one group to fight with whatever means they want and another group to be denied any right to fight or make claims to their homeland at all.

But really, this probably isn't the place to have such a discussion, as it detracts from the specific points and matters at hand regarding the film festival and the protest of the politicization of the festival for a PR campaign.

If Mr. Ebert wants the thread to take on a different direction and delve into the deeper issues of the conflict, then I'm by all means willing and more than able to do so (this topic was and continues to be not merely something of great importance to me, but one I researched and reported on as a journalist for almost a decade). But if Roger prefers that the thread remain focused on the specific issue of the Toronto festival and protest, then I think we should all respect that wish, even to the extent of not getting baited into arguments and debate with people posting false historical claims or terminology like "Let the Philistines make do where they're at" and such.

Can you give us some guidance on your preference on this matter, Mr. Ebert?

Ebert: I think the thread, within reason, must be what it wants to be. Having opened this topic, I don't feel I should cut off comments, except for gratuitous ones.

But I suggest there will be no end to this debate, certainly not on a thread like this, and no one is likely to change his mind. I set out to write only about the protest. I'm not qualified to debate wider points of Middle Eastern realities -- and why should anyone care what I think in this area, anyway?

Matt wrote that the festival denies any direct link to the Brand Israel campaign.

Yes, they deny it. And it is absolutely demonstrably false. Amir Grissin, who is behind the Brand Israel campaign, said LAST YEAR when the campaign kicked off that the campaign would culminated in a major showing at the Toronto Film Festival. This was public knowledge in the Canadian press as of the last portion of 2008. The festival was part of the explicit strategy in the campaign process in Toronto (again, where Brand Israel kicked off last year), and the festival was designated as the build-to event of the campaign.

The denial of a link between the festival's decision and the Brand Israel campaign is simply false. For a year, Brand Israel planned and arranged to have the Israeli films showcased at the festival, and it is grossly disingenuous for the festival to deny the link -- and it's particularly bad strategy, in light of how easily their denials can be disproven.

Being Greek, I don't really know about American people's opinion and view on some matters. I wanted to ask whether the majority of Americans agree with their government's policy towards Middle East the last - I don't know - many years. I think the US government's way of handlind this (diplomatically) is unacceptable. I think Obama speaks a bit more sensibly about this but I'm still not quite satisfied. The same applies to many countries' governments.

I agree that the timing showed great lack of sensitivity. I'm also happy Mr Ebert corrected himself.

I have been reading E.B. White's "The Trumpet of the Swan" to my two children and it reminds me very much of your post "I'm musing my mind." This might be a totally importune suggestion, but I really though it might be a joy for you. Having children has caused me to re-read White's Charlotte's Web and Stuart Little and now the Trumpet of the Swain and I have to say that the writing is delicious.

"I don’t think that Jews have some sort of ancestral right to take over a land because their ancestors lived there 1,900 years ago. (That kind of reasoning would force us to hand over North and South America to the Native Americans and Australia and New Zealand to the Aborigines and Maoris.) Nor do I consider to be legally valid the biblical promises by God that the land of Canaan would belong to the Children of Israel forever. (Especially since the Bible was written by the Children of Israel.) ....But don’t the Jews deserve a homeland? Actually, I feel that no human group deserves a “homeland” in the usual sense of the word."

--Isaac Asimov

Roger,

You are incorrect. The highlighting of Tel Aviv Films has nothing to do with the "Brand Israel" campaign. TIFF officials did not deal with Israeli government officials at all. Matt L. is absolutely correct. You clearly should have spoken to TIFF officials before revising your entry. As you know, this is a difficult topic that does not lend itself well to off the cuff remarks.

For me, this is the important bit:

"I'm writing this the day after first posting this entry. I now regret it. The point I make about artists is perfectly valid but I realize I wasn't prepared with enough facts about the events leading up to the Festival's decision to showcase Tel Aviv in the City-to-City section. I thought of it as an innocent goodwill gesture, but now realize it was part of a deliberate plan to "re-brand" Israel in Toronto, as a pilot for a larger such program. The Festival should never have agreed to be used like this. It was naive for the plan's supporters to believe it would have the effect they hoped for. The original entry remains below. The first 50 or so comments were posted before these regrets." - Roger Ebert

And now that he's amended his original entry to include it, I don't think it's necessary to reproach him anymore - especially since he's just as publicly owned aloud his error.

Roger loves movies. I think we can all agree about that. So too, that he supports the Arts. I dare it was his deep affection for Filmmakers in general which made him leap without looking - but he's a Gemini you know; they have their emotional side, too. :)

I also think the Festival was naive, but no more than that. Just naive for thinking it wouldn't become political. Live and learn, eh?

As for the conflict, imo - it's a pair of dirty fingers pointing at one another. Both are guilty of terrible things. I personally think they're both insane, myself. Not literally everyone of course. But if the only thing standing between you and peace is Religion - that's insane.

At any rate, I'm truly glad I don't live there, as I see it as a lost cause. It's not Northern Ireland, you know? That was never hopeless. Whereas I think this is. I think the madness on either side of the issue is too deeply entrenched. And will lead their respective zealots to sacrifice everything, including their own children's futures, before agreeing to share the dirt they're standing on.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind - but you need eyes to see that, eh?

Ebert: It appears the situation is intractable. Do you think that if the Palestinians had a guaranteed homeland, that would serve to somewhat defuse the issue?

I too was unclear of the facts and have now read more about it. I was glad to see Jane Fonda clarify her stance on the issue and retract the false claim that Tel Aviv was "built on destroyed Palestinian villages" and regretted "the omission of any mention of Hamas’s 8-month-long rocket and mortar attacks on the town of Sderot and the western Negev to which Israel was responding when it launched its war on Gaza. Many citizens now suffer from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result." Ms. Fonda should have written that the rocket and mortar attacks have been ongoing since the year 2001 (8 years, not 8 months), but her point is made. You may read the rest of Ms. Fonda's clarification here: http://www.jewishjournal.com/hollywood_jew/article/jane_fonda_responds_to_toronto_backlash_20090914/

However, my question in my last post is still unanswered. Why didn't Fonda and the rest protest when China was "re-branding" in last year's Olympic games?

As demonstrated by the string of "remove this word" comments & such, it can be hard to present a situation involving politics & entertainment in a manner pleasing to everyone. Thanks for your openness to a) re-examine your original post, and b) adhere to (some) of the sensitive requests of your readers. I've really enjoyed following your thoughts over the past year (sorry for the late start). I've always enjoyed your insight & intellect on film, but am now a fan of your sensitivity & frankness with regards to the personal topics & rants you share. (PS: I totally understand if a shameless compliment doesn't get posted)

Ebert: Just now I sort of felt like one.

Looks like you fell for some good old fashioned propaganda when you changed your mind, Roger. Here is the letter from TIFF specifically denying the "Brand Israel" conspiracy nonsense being dished out by the protestors. It's bull being thrown around in the typical "Zionists control the media" nonsense these people always spew out.

---

An Open Letter on City to City

August 28, 2009
An Open Letter on City to City: Tel Aviv

On August 27, John Greyson withdrew his film Covered from the Toronto International Film Festival as a protest against our City to City focus on films from Tel Aviv. The next day, he and nine other Torontonians issued a petition inviting the city’s cultural communities to “protest TIFF's complicity with the Israeli propaganda machine.” We felt it was important to directly respond to these allegations.

Obviously we are disappointed by John’s decision to withdraw his film. We are great admirers of his work and have been presenting his films at our Festival for almost 20 years. That said, we were surprised that he took this action given the facts of the situation.

As the programmer of City To City, I was attracted to Tel Aviv as our inaugural city because the films being made there explore and critique the city from many different perspectives. Furthermore, the City to City series was conceived and curated entirely independently. There was no pressure from any outside source. Contrary to rumours or mistaken media reports, this focus is a product only of TIFF’s programming decisions. We value that independence and would never compromise it.

The goal of City to City is to take a closer look at global cities through a cinematic lens, especially cities where film contributes to or chronicles social change in compelling ways. We believe that the 10 films in our inaugural programme do just that. We encourage everyone to see the films, engage in debate and draw their own conclusions.

In addition to City to City, our Festival lineup also includes other important films from the region, including two films by Palestinian filmmakers and others from Lebanon and Egypt. As these films address the past history and current realities of the region, we hope they will become part of this year's conversations.

John writes that his protest isn’t against the films or filmmakers we have chosen, but against the spotlight itself. By that reasoning, no films programmed within this series would have met his approval, no matter what they contained. For us, the content and form of films does matter. In fact, when I met with a number of the signatories earlier this week, I encouraged them to see the films before passing judgment on the programme. Regrettably, they chose a different route. We know some of them to be veterans of Toronto’s battles against censorship -- all the more surprising to watch them denounce a film series without seeing the films in it.

We recognize that Tel Aviv is not a simple choice and that the city remains contested ground. We continue to learn more about the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. As a festival that values debate and the exchange of cultures, we will continue to screen the best films we can find from around the world. This is our contribution to expanding our audiences’ experience of this art form and the worlds it represents.

Cameron Bailey
Co-Director, Toronto International Film Festival

Ebert: I most particularly did not ever justify hatred against Muslims and Arabs.

To be fair, I dont think you did either, but you came very close. It was a Siskel and Ebert special show in the 90's devoted to bigotry and stereotypes in movies. For the most part it was an excellent show. It covered portrayals of blacks, Jewish people, Asians, Native Americans and women etc in a very sensitive and intelligent way. At the end of the show it mentioned Arabs and Muslims in passing. The hateful words were actually Gene Siskel's. He said something like "Arabs will continue to be portrayed like this as long as they continue to blow up things." I dont think you challenged him on this, and then that was the end of the show. I think that it is fair to say that the Siskel and Ebert show promoted hatred towards Arabs and Muslims, although it is probably not fair to point the finger directly at you. I remember thinking what would happen to Mr Siskel's career if he had said those hate filled words about the other groups in the show ("as long as blacks/Jews...").

Mr Ebert, I suspect that you are a decent human being who will be happy to clear things up and set the record straight.

Perhaps we can dig up a copy of that show and clear things up. atthemovies.com now points to http://bventertainment.go.com/tv/buenavista/atm/archives.html and the search capability is very poor. It would be helpful just to know the year of that special show.

Ebert: I'm glad you determined that I did not say that.

Desperation: Canadian newspaper likens Naomi Klein to…. Goebbels

Philip Weiss also links to the Mayor of Tel Aviv who confirms that the TIFF linkage is part of the Brand Israel campaign (Canadian Jewish News)
"He said that while the City to City program was initiated by the festival, the Israeli ministry of foreign affairs was involved as part of its Brand Israel media and advertising campaign, which was launched last year."

Regarding the S&E show from the 90's, it is fair to point out the Mr Ebert did receive an award from the Arab-American Anti Discrimination Committee a few years later for promoting tolerance.

Ebert: Yes, and I was honored to receive it.

See, messes like this are why mankind won't be able to save itself from itself. All the things we could be talking about instead of this b.s. (And much more entertaining topics too.)
Todd Solondz's "Life During Wartime", for example...

There is so much confusion about the issue that debating it is pointless. Yes, the artists should be allowed to show their movies. No, the festival should not compromise its independence and use the films as some sort of weird re-branding propaganda... which they deny. And the truth just becomes more and more elusive... And all these people racking their brains, so angry about all this but nobody is complaining about how Toronto's CP24 has been 'covering TIFF' by talking about celeb sightings, letting teenage girls on the show who -- and I'm not making this up -- aren't even there for the movies but saw the Jonas Bros. (like so many teenage girls have) and somehow this qualifies them to be on T.V.

Roger, you're original article is closer to the truth when it starts talking movies. Everything else is besides the point. Please don't let this blog become like everywhere else on this planet... Everybody here should listen to Lennon's "(Just) Gimme Some Truth" and then get back to doing something more enjoyable... Leave these two opposing sides to destroy eachother over their rather silly albeit all too human problems. They might not be happier that way, without fuel for the fire, but that's their problem they seem to want to have.

Call me cold, call me naive, call me careless... but I'm missing those "Knowing" discussions about fate and determinism right about now. Much more interesting...

Ebert: I'm with you.

Roger,

You did man up and corrected an error.

I am impressed with your integrity.

FYI, the background of the Brand Israel campaign and the link to the film festival -- including the press discussion from last year about how Brand Israel would lead into the Toronto International Film Festival -- is the top story on JTA (the Jewish Telegraphic Agency new service) right now:

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/09/15/1007888/toronto-festival-calls-israeli-pr-strategy-into-question

To put the matter into a bit more context, keep in mind the information regarding last year's explicit reference to the link between Brand Israel and the film festival, and the fact that the film festival's initial announcement of the showcasing of Tel Aviv films came in June of this year.

Ebert: Anyone interested should have a look at that link.

You corrected an error with possibly another one (TIFF denies they had anything to do with "Brand Israel").

Ebert: I've just posted several comments disagreeing with the TIFF denial. You can debate this with those posters.

Thank you Roger. If you're interested in learning more about the I/P issue, particularly how it plays out here in America in our media and politics, I highly recommend visiting Phil Weiss and Adam Horowitz' site Mondoweiss. I think it's the most fascinating, and important, site on the web.

Phil Weiss, who grew up in the tradition of Jewish progressivism, overheard a relative one day say, "I protested against the Vietnam war, but I think this war (the U.S. invasion of Iraq) will be good for Israel." That led Phil to really look hard at what was going on with even allegedly progressive Jews when the issue of Israel came up (he has coined the term "PEP" - Progressive except for Palestine).

Phil wanted to write openly about the Israel Lobby and the effects of a media that is now almost entirely owned and run by pro-Israel Zionists. For this, he lost his political blog at The New York Observer, who admitted they weren't comfortable with his positions on Israel.

So much for a "free press" (if anybody believes that anyway).

But thank goodness for the internet.

http://mondoweiss.net/

Mark Hughes seems to be confusing the disputed Palestinian territories with undisputed borders of the State of Israel in his post above. In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan defined a small Jewish state set next to a small Palestinian Arab state. Tel Aviv is within the borders of the UN Partition Plan and the internationally recognized Israeli borders established after the War of Independence. In 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and groups of Palestinian guerrillas waged another genocidal war on Israel, but the result again did not turn in their favor and Israel conquered what is now internationally recognized as Palestinian land.

Mark Hughes wrote: "Arab citizens do not enjoy 'equal protection under Israeli law', as there are -- as anyone familiar with the situation and Israeli law knows -- specific legal preferences given to Jewish citizens of Israel and denied to Arab citizens who are non-Jewish."

The truth is that justice is blind in Israel. It is true that racism exists in Israel. Arab citizens of Israel are treated similarly to the way African Americans are treated in our country. Even so, the Israeli Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of Arab rights.

In response to the fact that capital punishment is illegal in Israel, Mark Hughes wrote a paragraph-long non sequitur on Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis. Nobody denies that children die unjustly during war. This is an fact of life when terrorists blend in with civilians by operating from hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings. Reports of these crimes are as documented as the mistakes of the Israeli army. Israeli soldiers who engage in reckless behavior are held accountable for their actions. There is no such self-corrective mechanism in Palestinian society.

Mark Hughes wrote: "To call Israel's record on human rights 'fair' is laughable."

I would say that the Israel's record on human rights in the past 20 years is a 6 out of 10. I'd rank the U.S. record as a 4. The Saudi Arabian record is a 0 out of 10. Mr. Hughes might reasonably disagree with my subjective rankings, but no unbiased person would say that Israel's record is on par with the world's worst human rights offenders.

Mark Hughes then writes a paragraph or two complaining about how his tax dollars are going to Israel. The U.S. has a long history of propping up terrible dictatorships in the Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. Perhaps Mr. Hughes shares my objection to the use of U.S. tax dollars to support Saudi Arabia, which, in turn, funds international terrorism. If his view is that using U.S. tax dollars to support the region's only stable democracy is illegitimate while using U.S. tax dollars on autocratic states hostile to U.S. interests is legitimate, then our views are irreconcilable.

Ebert: Are we supporting Saudi Arabia or bribing it? Doesn't it have lots of money?

Many films in a film festival will deal with important social, moral, political, environmental (etc.) issues and that is a good thing. That they may take one side of an argument is accepted as the filmmaker's license. The problem here is that TIFF as an international film festival and an organizing body needs to refrain from any semblance of partisanship. There is no doubt in my mind that the timing and decision to select Tel Aviv was a problem. I thought the 'open letter' to TIFF was well written and appropriate but can understand why TIFF stuck to their 'guns' at that late stage in their planning. Any modification to their planning would have been perceived as an admittance of intent. What might have happened if this discussion occurred many months earlier is anyone's guess but my hope is that TIFF would have been able to at a minimum broaden their scope of filmmakers in the programme to accomodate the supposed diversity of the city. I doubt that even with early intervention they would have scraped the idea of featuring Tel Aviv.

I loved The Band's Visit and Paradise Now and they are important films for helping to bridge this continuing huge divide. Another film that I would recommend, which on the surface seems completely non-political, is Broken Wings.

It is truly unfortunate that these agendas have hijacked the festival, just like they've hijacked the essence of this post. Middle Eastern conflicts are significant, but hijacking a film festival to highlight it is no better than a nominee using the Oscars to trumpet his causes. It kind of cheapens the cause and the manner it was brought up in.

I mean really, the TIFF pro-Israel? What's next, Cannes pro-China? Venice pro-Taliban? The Oscars pro-waterboarding? These may seem like silly assumptions but Jesus if we're going to use meaningful movie events as agenda touters of seemingly unrelated matters, what are the people behind it really achieving, aside from trivializing their issues further or alienating those they want to reach?

What a touchy subject. Easiest to address is that the slogan was "this machine kills fascists," and Woody Guthrie painted it on his guitar.

As longtime gadflies here may know, I don't trust the news one whit -- particularly about Israel and the the middle east. One thing for sure, lots and lots of them get along, as Roger's pointed out.

Over the years I've met frightened Israeli citizens as well as Americans who are obsessed with Jews.

On the one hand, an Israeli soldier told me in 1991 that the Knesset got together secretly and agreed they would henceforth maintain a nuclear first-strike policy. If so, and if "secret," obviously it was meant to be leaked, but not through the media.

The soldier's tales were abominable. They were nothing but frightened teenagers with machine guns who'd empty the magazines at any sound they didn't recognize, spraying neighborhoods indiscriminately. They also had "cat runs," collecting neighborhood cats on ropes and torturing them to death for... fun? This was the kind of situation the natives had to face daily. Still they called each other "cousin," derogatorily and even in affection owing to putative biblical roots.

On the other hand, or perhaps more than two hands needed, I've met paranoids both for and against the State of Israel.

This isn't casual language. I mean people frozen in fantasies from which they seem to have no escape. "The Jews" are still the cause of everything evil. They run everything. They'll get you fired from your job, hand your money over to the Rothschilds and sell your internal organs to the highest bidder. The current euphemism is "Zionists," and the internet is rife with such sites. These so obsessed have welded personal problems with various pieces of historical information, some true enough, some not so.

I sat now and then for a year at a coffeeshop with, probably, one of the most intellectually brilliant men I've yet met, who was a "White Aryan." He was, literally, a rocket scientist for Raytheon. He wore a black T-Shirt with big bold white words F*CK ISRAEL emblazoned across it.

His capacity for factual and historical information was huge. There wasn't an odd-or-end bit of obscure info (with which I like to entertain people) that he didn't already know. How many acres of land did Adolf Hitler own in Colorado? Who invented zero? What was the controversy with Einstein's first wife? Who was Torquemada and what was his actual purpose? Well... what do you call those nibs on the ends of your shoelaces?

Much more than just that sort of thing. He could quote whole passages of Thomas Jefferson's writings. He knew the whole Communist Manifesto. He was one of the rare people who'd actually read Origin of Species.

And he knew, he just knew, that the state of Israel needed to be wiped out and all the Jews along with it, for they were racially and genetically inferior people who had already nearly wrecked the purity of the Aryan race. Zionism was methodically enslaving mankind.

Eventually "Jews" fired this man from his job at Raytheon. Eventually he went so crazy he no longer recognized me on the street. I was quietly grateful he didn't.

That's the kind of paranoid I mean; he's hardly the only one I've met -- I have a friend of 30 years who's the same way, and had the time to watch this paranoia grow in his mind, no matter how eloquent I've been against it -- there are masses of people stuck in such fantasies to one degree or another.

Back to the first hand, there are masses -- if one can call some fraction of 12.5 million Jews worldwide "masses" -- who feel as justified in "secretly" declaring a nuclear first-strike policy, as they believe they're surrounded by enemies.

Bill Hays here has been getting a little better trotting out facts supporting his own holy crusade against "religion," but with the issue of Israel, we're looking at a collusion of religious and political and scientific ideas tangled tighter than the famous Gordian knot with the sword of Damocles headed for it to unpredictable results. I'm surprised the entire middle East hasn't gone up in fiery dust already, but then, I haven't spoken to enough natives to learn how they do indeed get along with each other. I doubt it's by "survival of the fittest."

It's in this context that some faction of the Israeli government has apparently introduced its PR scheme to this film festival. I doubt their intentions were to walk into it with chips on their shoulders.

Roger Ebert asked in a post above, "Do you think that if the Palestinians had a guaranteed homeland, that would serve to somewhat defuse the issue?"

I wish I could answer in the affirmative. When, in 2000, American mediators headed by Bill Clinton proposed Palestinian sovereignty over 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace, the Israeli side accepted the offer. The Palestinian side rejected the offer and began the Second Intifada only days after the peace summit failed. The entire world, including the Arab world, was shocked by the Palestinian rejection of the deal.

Ebert: Why do you think they did that?

i encourage every one here to read Ebert's review of Paradise Now. It is the single review that stopped me reading his work.

I am not Palestinian. Or from the Middle East. Essentially Ebert uses the review of the flim as a platform for his own dismissal of the film's empathy towards some under served narratives in current cinema. To that end, we grasp what Ebert thinks of Palestinians, Islamic views of martyrdom -- their complexity, misuse, legitimate rage of the central protagonists and dismisses it almost outright, with what can only be called an obvious contempt.

Now read his fawning review of Speilberg's Munich, a profoundly racist and deeply damaging film to the cause of any real dialogue. In the film, Speilberg has the Palestinian bomber couch his motives in pure anger. Essentially, Speilberg creates a straw man for the opposition's argument so he can suggest what is at best a token offer to have heard both sides. If Speilberg really cared he would have invoked any or some of the work of the late Edward Said for ideas that conveyed what Palesitinian grievances were, but he does not. Ebert couches his own review in a personal apologia for the central characters' behavior and then defends Spielberg's love for Israel.

I have deliberately chosen not to quote from the reviews here. If you care, I encourage you to go read them side by side, forgetting what I have written. I believe that any one with a modicum of decency will see which way, for better or for worse, Ebert falls with his sympathies. But, in any case, having sympathies is not a crime by any means. It is when you parade those sympathies with double standards as he has done in these two reviews that you see what a betrayal of his role as a public writer has been to review films on a political matter with such double standards.

Increasingly, Ebert will fall in to the remaindered category of reviewers and public liberals who are relics of the twentieth century. Liberals who did not speak loud enough when we bombed directly or by proxy other innocents -- often Muslims and Arabs -- and kept quiet in the name of Israel's defense. Tacit accomplices to this Israel re branding project . The bulk of these people will stand in line for rehashes of New Wave cinema and the heady days of student justice and a kind of hand me down sixties sloganeering for a better world, but became right wing hawks when it came to speaking out about the injustices against arabs or muslims.

Read the reviews for yourself. those who take Ebert's political position will read nothing to object to -- any one else who cares about some justice in the public sphere, will see just the kind of views that have angered Belafonte, Mortensen and others for so long.

Ebert: Believe anything you want about my "Munich" review. I am baffled by your response to this review of "Paradise Now:"

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051103/REVIEWS/511030305/1023

I'm sad to see you changed your original post. It was far closer to the proper position on this issue, and I'm sad to see people have had so much success throwing dust in peoples' eyes.

Israel gets a hefty share of criticism and live coverage of the entirety of its military policies as it is. But what ever Israel does wrong to the Palestinians, you must agree it has more to show for its existence than this aspect.

And here comes a what-if scenario.

Had a film festival featured Palestinian stories of humanity and civil life under conflict, not a single soul would have protested. Not one person would have dared accuse the Palestinians of detracting discussion from their 'regular' image as terrorists who murder elderly and children, and for decades ignore international conventions on warfare.

Please do make the thought experiment - imagine public reaction to a Palestinian 'rebranding' - a movie festival about civilian life in Ramallah or Gaza.

Would anyone dare label it an evil PR ploy? Would anyone mistakenly believe it reduced the monstrosity of suicide bombers? Would it justify the 8 year long policy of rocket shelling of Israeli civilian centers?

No it wouldn't. And that's the simple truth. There is no harm that can be caused by highlighting the civilian areas of the Palestinian or Israeli societies, that are under-reported.

And the political reaction to such festival by the same 'progressives' protesting today would have been the opposite. The festival would have been labeled "an important step" towards understanding, and reducing simplistic stereotypes and hatred. People would say it highlights the important human side of the conflict.

Now break out of the thought experiment and tell me how is it any different for Israel.

Israelis are portrayed by pro-Palestinian activists as single minded militaristic zealots bent on occupation. They are not. They have a wide array of opinions which are discussed int he media as well as through the popular arts.

For all the wrong that it is doing, Israel is certainly not a one sided lump of evil, and for all the 'facts' each side is sure of, the conflict is more complex, and shady than any commentator would have you believe, with plenty of shades of gray.

For some people, Israelis do not enjoy the same right to reduce stereotypes or promote understanding of the human side of events taking place in their borers. For some people, Israelis should only be show in context of warfare, suffering and purported civil rights violations.

Guess what - the people who try to keep it this way are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.

So do you honestly think the promotion of these films secretly serves a devious goal other than promoting cultural understanding and tolerance?

You know well enough that the opposite is true, as is evident by the first version of your post.

All these allegations of re-branding come down to exposing foreign audiences to the variances in Israeli political agenda, and the intricacies of Israeli life. Also at some points the complex Israeli view of the conflict that is honest and not marred by government propaganda.

Can you honestly say this is malevolent? Do any of the films make anyone support Israeli policies? Does it condone bloodshed?

The answer is simple: no.
And that is the only thing relevant.

Respectfully yours.

Ebert states:

"and why should anyone care what I think in this area, anyway?"

Well, good point Roger. Why would anyone? Let's extend that: Why would anyone care about what you think about evolution? Or ID? Or any of the topics of your blogs that aren't movie related?

Your use of this reasoning seems like a flimsy excuse in light of how willing you are to voice your thoughts in other "areas."

Ebert: Maybe it's because in the areas of evolution and ID I'm certain I am correct.

Hi Roger,
If I understood your intention correctly, it should be "Andrzej Wajda in Poland", not "Andrez Wajda in Polace".
Robert

Ebert: You understand it correctly.

Roger, just wanted to say kudos to you, I think it's fantastic that a man of your reputation and standing is willing to admit that he was wrong. I think it shows great humility and character. Two thumbs up, mate.

MAL: I submit this for your consideration: Your neighbour's child continues throwing rock's at your children, and at times causing injury. You ask your neighbour to stop the child from throwing stones but it continues. You ask again and the neighbour only says their is nothing he can do, thus allowing the child to continue throwing rocks. You call the police but they say their is nothing they can do. This goes on for many months, pehaps years. How long do you think it would be before you retaliated? And with what pent up emotion?

Your comparison of the Palestinians to children speaks volumes about your perception of the Palestinian people. Also, by painting the picture of harmonious co-existence between Israelis and Palestinians prior to the 2006 elections you provide even more evidence of your distorted sense of the reality of the conflict. Need I remind you of the several wars and two Intifadas that took place before Hamas rose to power? I have no doubt that there are several instances of friendly relationships between Israelis and Palestinians but to suggest as you do that things were fine before Hamas showed up is a complete mischaracterization of a struggle that has been ongoing since 1948.

As for Roger’s original post; Roger, I am an avid fan of both your essays and film reviews and consistently enjoy reading your commentaries on a wide range of issues. In this instance however, there are a few things that I take issue with. (By the way, I haven’t read all of the preceding posts, so forgive me if I am beating a dead horse.) First, as I am sure it has already been pointed out, the protesters explicitly state that they are not denouncing or boycotting any of the Israeli filmmakers themselves. What they take issue with is showcasing a city in which policy decisions are made that result in numerous violations of human rights and according to the United Nations, war crimes. The politics at hand here are complex to say the least and I realize the motivation behind your post is that you feel artists shouldn’t be punished for the actions of their native countries. What bothers me about your post is that I think you reveal a certain amount of hidden bias that is uncharacteristic of most of your writing (that isn’t to say that you don’t express an opinion, it’s just that you usually state in plainly and from the get-go). You cite a handful of American actors, including Jane Fonda as among the protesters and you leave them to characterize the entire group. My initial reaction upon reading this list was a roll of the eyes and thinking to myself “I wonder what Sean Penn is up, that he isn’t getting in on this.” Essentially, in what seems to me like an attempt to marginalize the protesters, you portray them as just another group of Hollywood liberals getting on their soapboxes. Then however, I saw the letter, who authored it and who signed on as endorsers. You basically cherry-picked the 4 or 5 American actors out of a list of dozens of filmmakers, writers, producers, professors and other artists from around the world and let them stand for the whole bunch. I realize that most of your readers are probably unfamiliar with such individuals as Elia Suleiman but nevertheless it seems obvious that you cited who you did for a reason. I know that a writer as intelligent and talented as you is well aware of how you were characterizing by the protesters. Long story short, I was just surprised that there appeared to be a slant to your writing that you didn’t openly state from the beginning.

P.S. If you want to give the Evolution vs. Intelligent design thread a run for its money, you ought to write a commentary about Israel/Palestine. I would be interested to read your thoughts on the issue.

Ebert addressed two questions to me. The premise behind the rhetorical first question ("Are we supporting Saudi Arabia or bribing it? Doesn't it have lots of money?") is probably true. I should have picked a better example. Pakistan comes to mind.

His second question asks why I think the Palestinians rejected the offer given to them in 2000 for a sovereign state. In his autobiography, Bill Clinton suggested that Yasir Arafat, the late chairman of Fatah, could not see himself making the adjustment from insurrectionist leader to government administrator; Arafat wanted to die fighting for Israel's destruction, and, unfortunately for both sides, he did. Arafat told Clinton as much when he said:

"By accepting that deal, I will be betraying my people, my nation, and my creed. It is not in my capacity, or the capacity of any Palestinian leadership, to leave [the holy sites in] Jerusalem under Israeli sovereignty or waive the refugees' right of return [into Israel]." (qtd. in Arafat's War by Efraim Karsh)

Two points about Israeli films. First, they are often extremely critical of Israeli policy, which the TIFF protestors should consider. Second, Tel Aviv has some similarities to Toronto that films can shed light on.

Think of the following Israeli films of the past several years, none of which I'd call exactly pro-Israel: "Lemon Tree" and "The Syrian Bride" show how rules drawn up by the Israeli government needlessly hurts the lives of Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. "Waltz With Bashir" addresses the fact that Israel failed to prevent the Sabra and Shatila massacres. "Avenge But One of My Own Two Eyes" uses the biblical story of Samson to justify Palestinian violence against Israel. "James' Journey to Jerusalem" and "What a Wonderful Place" both make Israelis look corrupt and mean by exploiting foreign laborers.

Toronto, home of the TIFF, is a city of amazing diversity, with half of its residents born outside of Canada. Like Toronto, Tel Aviv is a city of people from all over the world. This is reflected in recent films set in the city from the past few years.

"Paper Dolls" is a documentary about Filipino drag queens who work as aides for elderly Israelis."What A Wonderful Place" dramatizes the plight of women trafficked into Tel Aviv from the former Soviet Union, and the role of Thai agricultural labor elsewhere in Israel. "Noodle" is a light-hearted story of an undocumented Chinese mother and son in the city. "Live and Become" is a fictional look at the lives of Ethiopians there and their struggle to be recognized as Jewish. The documentary "A Hebrew Lesson" follows immigrants to Tel Aviv studying Hebrew who are not all white, nor all Jewish.

The Palestinian quest for self-determination is a valid concern, however these films show that there's a lot more to Israel (vis-a-vis its largest city, Tel Aviv) than the occupation. They're worth a look, whatever your politics.

Responding to some of the points above, without quoting the points directly.

1- Regarding "Paradise Now." The plot is about suicide bombers. The story, however, is about being caged, and trying to get out of the cage. The cage, as presented in the film, is the occupied territory, and paradise is liberation from it. The pathways offered for freedom from the cage are religion (by persons who hardly practice the religion themselves), honor, cinema, education, immigration, suicide, anger, etc.. I'm sure people are going to misunderstand me, but we can make some loose thematic comparisons to Spike Lee's "Clockers," "Boyz'n the Hood," as well as many High School films (that are often about being caged and alienated).

2- Regarding "Munich," the plot is about the hunt for the murderers and their sponsors, but we have the question asking what it means to be Jewish, in terms of identity, ideals, conduct, loyalty, lineage, and the boundaries thereof etc.. against a world of real and perceived hostility.

3- Regarding the portrayals of Muslims and Arabs in American film, we do indeed rarely find images of Muslims and/or Arabs that do not involve some sort of savage, hypersexual, or clownish behavior. Whether or not this is an agenda, is a different point, because we can make a similar comment about portrayals of African Americans and Latinos (up until a certain point in recent American film history). We can also make a similar point about the stereotyping in film of low-income White People (i.e. "White Trash").

I was just watching "The Searchers" for the first time since childhood and simultaneously loved the story, cinematography, and characters, yet was equally repulsed by the depictions of the Native Americans and Latinos. We can easily argue that the common depiction of women in American film is often problematic. My point is that this portrayal, while so frequently true of the portrayal of Muslims and Arabs, is the common depiction of "others."

4- Regarding the portrayals of Jews in American film, I have to comment because there is this notion that somehow Jews are given a free pass in terms of stereotyping. That's wrong. One thing that I appreciated about "American Gangster," is that Russell Crowe plays a Jewish character who contradicts the cheap stereotype we find in American film about Jews. He has the chance to steal a million dollars, and refuses to.

5- Aside from film, my invite for lunch or dinner extends to those above (and below), to chat. If you're in Chicago and are pro- or anti-Palestinian or pro- or anti-Israeli, let's break bread. Otherwise, you're not gonna solve the crisis by commenting on this blog, but you might be able to make a new friend.

Anyways, back to the Night of Power (Laylat al-Qadr).

Omer M

Whoa...as a Jewish resident of Jerusalem, I wish I'd have had that coffee before delving into the comments of this one. Fascinating back and forth (both encouraging and a bit scary).
I've found this whole affair quite stirring. It (so far) hasn't become nearly as vitriolic as these matters generally do, and has actually given me a chance to reflect on the matter of criticism of my country. A very strange thing has happened: I am stauncher in my national pride than ever, yet I am also far more accepting and understanding of the voices of protest. I'm happy with this outcome, after long periods of wrestling between my left-leaning outlook on everything and the fact that it's not very comfortable to have one's country's validity questioned. Though I am getting increasingly tired with the arguments for and againt being voiced all over the world. Both on the left and on the right, so few of them are open-minded enough to actually come close to representing the reality.
The situation is far more human than you'd think, with far fewer absolutes than the ones freely tossed around in nearly every conversation about the Israli-Palestinian situation.

Neither side is as pure-minded as this, but I personally am glad for my country's film industry to act as an emmissery AND I'm glad the protest was measured enough to start the dialogue that its creators wished to bring about.

Ebert: A refreshing comment. We try for civil debates on this blog.

To Josh Wink: I took your advice and read the PARADISE NOW review. I did not see one particle of the "obvious contempt" you describe. Instead there seems to be a humble attempt to understand the suicide bomber phenomenon using the film as a lens for such. I think Ebert did better than most could to try to be objective about it.

Though you assert that you're not from the Mideast, much less Palestinian, it is obvious to me that you've formed an opinion of the situation that would be reflected in your own review of PARADISE NOW, should you ever write one. It is so difficult to be objective!

What I object to most strongly, of what you say, is that you deem the PARADISE NOW review as proof that Ebert is not worth reading. Yet you're using his Journal as a platform for your own views. That you are given a voice is one big reason I am an Ebertphile: he listens; he admits he's wrong sometimes (note this very entry); and he lets opposing viewpoints spin out to exhaustion. I share his astonishment at your take on his review, and ask you to reconsider.

Josh Wink:
Essentially Ebert uses the review of the flim [Paradise Now] as a platform for his own dismissal of the film's empathy towards some under served narratives in current cinema. To that end, we grasp what Ebert thinks of Palestinians, Islamic views of martyrdom -- their complexity, misuse, legitimate rage of the central protagonists and dismisses it almost outright, with what can only be called an obvious contempt.

I'm with Roger on this one - I don't get where you're coming from. Can you explain what you mean? I haven't seen the film but it sounds very good and thought-provoking. Without having seen the movie, the worst thing I can say about the review is that it reads like a 3.5-4 star review but he only pegged it at 3.

As for comparing it side by side with the review of Munich - yes, Roger gave Munich a much longer and more in-depth review. It was also a major nationwide release at Christmas by one of the biggest directors in the business, and went on to get five Oscar nominations. Paradise Now was an independent foreign film in Arabic, that I'm betting ran only in arthouse theaters and was probably reviewed by hardly any major critics at all. Would you really expect them to get equal coverage?

@Jawad on September 16, 2009 6:31 PM

Re: your link to "Desperation: Canadian Newspaper likens Naomi Klein to ... Goebbels"

The Canadian newspaper in question was the National Post. The National Post was created originally by Conrad Black, but was sold to CanWest Publishing Inc, an arm of CanWest Global Communications Corporation. This corporation is largely controlled by the Asper family, who are Jewish. The Asper family controls most of the daily newspapers in Canada, and there have been considerable concerns expressed in various media over the concentration of ownership of these newspapers and the fact that the Aspers insist their newspapers follow the corporate lead in the area of editorial content. I've read articles suggesting many newspaper publishers have been fired or resigned. The National Post is relentlessly conservative, Naomi Klein relentlessly liberal if not socialist. The moment I saw your link, I said to myself, "I bet that was the National Post", and lo and behold! I was right. Make of that what you will, but I'm convinced there is some ideological basis for the National Post's treatment of Naomi Klein.

Roger, you wrote in response to someone's comment, "Do you think that if the Palestinians had a guaranteed homeland, that would serve to somewhat defuse the issue?"

They do have a guaranteed homeland. It's just that the organization that did the guaranteeing is refusing to honour it.

The UN divided up Palestine in the 40s, and passed a resolution that called for the creation of separate Jewish and Palestinian homelands. The Jewish state was eventually created, but the Palestinian homeland was not. The Jewish state pushed many Palestinians who lived within its borders out - they became unwelcome refugees in Lebanon, Egypt and Syria (yes, Arab states wanted nothing to do with their Palestinian Arab cousins). Israel has refused to allow the "right of return" - the right of Palestinians displaced in 1948 to return to the place they used to call home. The logic for this is simple demographics - right now, Israel is mostly Jewish. But if all the Palestinians who were forced out of Israel in 48 (and/or their descendents) returned, Jews would find themselves a minority (about 45%) in Israel.

Roger, I I am a moderate, like you (I like to think), and that I have good will to most people who are of good will themselves.

Consequently, I believe that
1) the vast majority of Jews and Palestinians just want to get on with their lives, in peace
2) the extremely vocal and extremist minorities among both the Jews and the Palestinians are the tails wagging their respective dogs - determining the agendas and the policies.
3) if the silent majorities of moderate Jews and Palestinians actually banded together and treated the extremist Jews and Palestinians as a common enemy, there would be peace in short order...officially. The extremists of both sides would still resort to terrorism.
4) neither side has clean hands. Both Extremist Palestinian leaders and extremist Jewish leaders have done everything they can to perpetuate the conflict
5) the extremist Jews are being short sighted. The Arabs legitimately in Israel have a higher birth rate than the Jews. At current birth (and immigration) rates, in about 50 years, Israel will have a population that is majority Arab. Israel needs to make peace now, needs to embed minority rights into its laws now, needs to make peace with Syria and Lebanon and become the engine of the area's economy now, or in 50 years Israel will find itself with a vastly different situation where Jews will not be a majority in Isreal, where legitimately resident Palestinians will be able to agitate for equal democratic rights (which I believe they don't have presently) and then they'll take over the government democratically, and then Jews will find themselves possiblly in the position of being the oppressed minority...again...with no one else in the region interested in preserving Israel as a state because there are no economic or social reasons to do so. And in 50 years, the US won't be the world's superpower, it'll just be one of several, as India, China, possibly Russia and/or the EU and maybe even Brazil make the world much more geopolitically uncertain. How much political/military capital with the US be willing to expend to protect Israel then?

Whew; what a day!

For reasons known only to the Gods, my Master C Drive decided to partially commit suicide Wednesday afternoon. I keep all my important stuff on a second Drive and I've got all my software installers burned to disk - including a legal copy of Windows XP Professional; this was the only reason I didn't drop dead from a massive heart attack.

As luck would have it, my geeky brother was coming over for dinner and so we went a local Mall, bought a new 500 Gig HD and he installed Windows XP for me while we watched Janeane Garofalo and David O'Hara bump heads in "The Matchmaker" (1997) - a film which I can never see often enough...

Marcy Tizard: "Is being an idiot like being high all the time?"
Sean Kelly: "No, it's like being constantly right."

Chuckle; best line in the whole movie. :)

He's coming back tomorrow to finish up and see what we can save off the Master - which includes some photos of you inside O'Rourke's pub; I'll let you if they need replacing, Roger.

Meanwhile...

Ebert wrote: It appears the situation is intractable. Do you think that if the Palestinians had a guaranteed homeland, that would serve to somewhat defuse the issue?

Yes, but only if the Israeli's were willing to give the Palestinians enough of the dirt they actually want. Otherwise, they'll just keep fighting over it.

No one asked me, but God is not a patch of dirt. If you need it, I don't think you actually believe in what you're willing to die for; the dirt is just a glorified crutch, in my opinion. A form of proof so you don't have to rely solely upon pure faith.

I say that as someone who doesn't need to live in Rome, near the Vatican, see the Shroud of Turin or visit Holy sites - none of that stuff.

Is there a God?
Yes.
How do I know?
Because we talk all the time and God told me; smile.

If Israeli kids and Palestinian kids were both attending the same schools, playing in the same parks, shopping in the same stores, hanging out, it wouldn't be possible for either side to attack the other without attacking themselves.

I see that as the only real solution, myself; make it so the gun you point at your enemy is literally the same one you point at yourself. Then, no longer distracted, maybe their parents could finally grow-up and start acting like adults.

P.S. I believe in an imperfect God. For I shouldn't be able to do something God can't. And since I'm flawed - ergo, God is too. This explains why stuff doesn't always go the way you'd like it to, and a 250 Gigabyte Hard Drive sometimes slit its wrists. :)

Jeremy Smith wrote: "Why would anyone care about what you think about evolution? Or ID? Or any of the topics of your blogs that aren't movie related?"

I have been reading Roger's reviews since I was a pre-teen. I am now on the verge of 33. To this day, unless I am pretty certain that I am not going to see a particular film, I bypass the middles of the reviews. I skim for witty quotes, and I know how to read them so that I don't miss anything. After I see a movie, I sometimes go back and read the middle just to make sure I'm on level with the film's plot, characters, etc. That's never been the reason I've read Roger's reviews. If I wanted a plot summary or a film construction outline, I could find those from countless other critics. Of course, Roger often writes reviews that bypass those middles themselves, and makes whole-of-the-review reading essential. His "Muppets Take Manhattan" review was a letter to Kermit for goodness sake. There is a rare and simple poetry, intelligence, and humanity that is found in his writing. Billy Joel sang, "Honesty is such a lonely a word; everyone is so untrue." There are times when Roger may be dead wrong, but it's never been the result of him being dishonest. If you want to read film reviews, and nothing but film reviews, feel free to head over to rottentomatoes.com, or to not stop by Roger's journal. It's kind of there so that people can see the man behind the reviews. I used to always tell people growing up that his reviews are not about film (which of course they are) but about life. I used to collect those sentences containing life information and store them up in my soul. Now, I have a flood of them every week, more than I could hope to store, and it's absolutely ...wonderful.

Roger, I've always admired your work and now I have even more heightened respect. I posted a counterargument to your original post on the protest at TIFF. You have since clarified your position and added a personal note to my blog entry clarifying your position. Thanks very much and kudos to you.

Please support the artists such as Jane Fonda who is under assault for being an original signatory to the Toronto Declaration.

In the meantime, everyone is raving about you over at the Mondo website:
http://mondoweiss.net/2009/09/roger-ebert-amends-his-review-of-the-toronto-protest.html

Someone above made it seem like the Israelis don't want Palestinians in their midst NOW due to demographics.

Wrong.

Israel IMMEDIATELY refused the Palestinian refugees right to return, AS SOON AS they kicked them out!

They never intended on them coming back.

It's not like, they once did and then over time they decided against it. They NEVER intended on allowing these people back to their home.

I should add, that my post near the top was mistaken:

I meant to say that the protest was not against the RIGHT to express oneself. The protest was against the SPOTLIGHT on Tel Aviv as part of Israel's "Re-branding" project, to mitigate the bad PR it got when it murdered 1400 people in Gaza last year. Kudos to Roger for finding out more about the protest.

It is NOT a protest of Israeli artists' right to express themselves.

SIDE-NOTE: No State has an inherent right to exist because States are simply POLITICAL ENTITIES.

The 'JEWISH' State, much like most States was founded on the displacement and dispossession of the INDIGENOUS population.

It has no inherent and ARBITRARY right to exist. There would be no Jewish majority inside Israel unless the Zionists kicked out all those Palestinian Arabs. That's how they did it too!

In 1948, the Zionist armies kicked out 800K Palestinians both inside the Jewish partition and inside the Palestinian partition. So many lies are stated as truth about Israel here in the States. We are told to think innocent Israel was just walking along and boom, the Arabs attacked. The ethnic cleansing of Palestinians began MONTHS before the declaration of Statehood by the Israelis.

People - do yourself a favor and pay attention to this conflict. Read as much as you can, and you'll see what is really going on there. Zionists regularly use EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL and other logical fallacies to DIVERT or OBFUSCATE or CENSOR any kind of meaningful and sincere debate on Zionism and Israel and Palestine.

Just look at the ridiculous Jewish law of return.

Any Jew - no matter whether they have ties to the land, can go live in Israel while Palestinian refugees WHO WERE KICKED OUT BY THE ZIONISTS cannot!

Don't buy into their lies. READ! Educate yourself on this conflict. It's one of the most studied conflicts ever.

Jawad wrote: "The hateful words were actually Gene Siskel's. He said something like "Arabs will continue to be portrayed like this as long as they continue to blow up things."

Siskel was right, and there was nothing hateful about those words. Just truth. To this day they will continue to be portrayed that way not because Arabs are all bad but because some of them have ruined it for the rest. However, it's funny how Muslims never demonstrate against acts of terrorism. Where were the Muslim protests in London in 2005 after that subway bombing? I was there at the time. They were silent. As usual.

re `This machine kills fascists`

Ebert: Borrowed from Pete Seeger's banjo.

Then Pete must of borrowed it from Woody Guthrie`s guitar, as that is where it originated.

Ebert: We're all wrong. It says something about surrounding evil and forcing it to surrender.

I appreciate all the rational (probably about 80% of these posts) discussion on this topic. It's clear to most people that there are very complicated issues here, and that both Palestinian and Israeli camps are greatly at fault. Most of these protesters are from the usual camp (where are Tim Robbins and Sean Penn?) and thus will be ignored by the non-filmgoing community.
Here's my advice to them in the future: Instead of protesting Israel's attempt to "re-brand" themselves, why not use the opportunity to put on a small (10 or so) Palestinian film showcase directly before or after TIFF. This would bring a greater audience to these rarely distributed and very deserving films.

Ebert: I'm not qualified to debate wider points of Middle Eastern realities -- and why should anyone care what I think in this area, anyway?

Excellent point and quite true - no one should care. The same as no one should care what Bill O`Reilly or any other pundit `thinks` about political issues. Unfortunately, this does not stop pundits like yourself from influencing discussion simply by way of submitting your uninformed opinion to your audience. And that is why people do care. Because all this misinformation adds up, or at least contributes to, a society of ignorance and uninformed opinions. You have struck me as being largely above that scene though....

And I also detect something disingenuous about your above quote. Really? So you make a clear statement about something you apparently have taken no time to investigate, and then wish to duck behind the ol `who, me?` pose? Cmon, Roger... if you had done this level of research and investigation when you were a reporter and then submitted this piece, would you have considered it good work?

I'm not sure what baffles (or perhaps saddens) me more--our nonchalent indifference, mis-, under, and/or ill-informed ignorance or righteous indignation regarding "this area."

And why should anyone care what you think in "this area"? I don't know but I really wish you hadn't said that, either.

Peter Fawthrop--

You missed the point of my post. My statements were an extension of reasoning that Roger himself used in an earlier post, and I was doing so to call into question his reasoning. I was not implicating that Roger should not write about things non-movie related. Read Roger's original comment, read my post again, count to ten, and then think.

Nick D.,

"Your comparison of the Palestinians to children speaks volumes about your perception of the Palestinian people."

I believe if you re-read my comments you will find that I merely provided an illustrative analogy and in no way compared Palestinians to children. In fact, if anything, I suggest that the Palestinian people in Gaza are the adults with the potential for action to change the outcomes brought on by Hammas, whom they have spawned by virtue of democratic choice.

Nor did I intend to suggest all was peaceful prior to 2006; merely that peaceful coexistence was not only possible but real.

To be fair, of course, both sides in this conflict share culpability, the reasons for which are far too complex to address here.

Ebert: "Maybe it's because in the areas of evolution and ID I'm certain I am correct."

Such a small response, but it reveals so much.

Viggo Mortenson, eh? I remember seeing him with Peter Jackson on Charlie Rose promoting LOTR: The Two Towers, not long after 9/11. I think that was the first time he wore his home-made t-shirt with the slogan "no blood for oil." This was early, before most of us had recovered our wits enough to pay attention to the path Bush II was leading us down. So Viggo may be just smart enough.

But it's tiring to be right in these times, you know? Even my sixteen-year-old son is already getting weary of the lying and hypocrisy. However, he seems to have adopted an interesting therapy: memorizing No Country for Old Men--like the kid in Diner who wanders around quoting Sweet Smell of Success. It's at once sad and beautiful to live with someone who suddenly says, "You can't stop what's coming; it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity," or simply, "It's the dismal tide." Diogenes Jr., thrusting a lamp in your face.

Jane Fonda seems to have taken criticisms like yours to heart, at least in part:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/sep/15/jane-fonda-toronto-festival

In this all too often polarizing conflict, it's gratifying to see people resist falling into easy cliches and reconsider their views as events unfold, rather than deepen them defensively.

Also, Roger, I was wondering: you respond to a comment above which notes that the Palestinians rejected President Clinton and Ehud Barak's offer - of statehood in 97% of the West Bank with a capital in East Jerusalem - by asking "Why do you think they did that?"

That tragic rejection resulted in the right-ward shift evident in Israeli politics today, including the heavy-hearted loss of faith of some of Israel's most erudite and prominent leftists in the integrity of the Palestinian side (e.g. the famed historian Benny Morris, who previously went to jail rather than participate in Israeli military action and literally wrote the book on the Palestinian refugee problem).

Your question "Why do you think the Palestinians rejected the offer" implies (I think, please correct me otherwise) that you believe there is something other than a desire to possess all of Israel and a refusal to compromise that underlay Arafat's rejection at that time - what do you know that I (and Clinton and Morris and many others who've, against their deepest hopes, offered the above interpretation) don't?

Do you think things have changed since that moment, and if so, how? I would love to hear your thoughts on this, as my own are quite confused, as always.

Wikipedia has some good references on Bill Clinton's reactions to Arafat's rejection at Camp David in 2000, including from the recent My Life.

I'm especially curious to see what city is given a spotlight next year at the festival (fingers crossed for Ramallah, Inshallah) and what future public responses to TIFF's city selections will be like.

Will people be as vitriolic against Turkey and supportive of the Kurds if Istanbul is chosen? What if a major industrializing city in China is chosen, will people mention the brutal oppression of its laborers? Or the lack of freedom of the press in Cuba if Havana is chosen? Or better, the actual apartheid that occurs in Saudi Arabia, if, in the unlikely event that Mecca is showcased.

Apparently, we're supposed to all have immovable rhetorical positions on the Middle East conflict, as if any of them made any difference.

Roger, is there any chance for a response to my argument, comparing the validity of this re-branding for Israel, versus a theoretical case of re-branding Palestinians?

Could tell me how you think reactions would have been different (or the same) in that case? Would you also resent a "re branding" of Palestinians?

Ebert: Both sides could use some re-branding.

Pretty sure it was Woody Guthrie's guitar, but maybe Pete Seeger's banjo killed fascists, too.

Maybe Tom Waits needs to visit Toronto
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqhoCj4uFfQ&feature=related

An historical analogy to the current brouhaha: In 1978 Vanessa Redgrave accepted an Academy Award for her role in Julia. In her short acceptance speech, she congratulated the Academy for standing up against "a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums," referring to some Jewish groups who had tried to deny her the award (and were at that moment protesting outside the theater) because she had once participated in a documentary film calling for a Palestinian homeland. Later in the evening, when screenwriter (and staunch Zionist) Paddy Chayefsky came to the podium, he admonished Redgrave for "exploiting the Academy Awards for the propagation of [her] own personal propagana." This took some chutzpah, considering that Redgrave had just congratulated the academy for keeping politics OUT OF the awards.

I see the position of the TFF protesters as exactly the same as Redgrave's. It is Israel's attempt to politicize the festival that they are objecting to, not to Israel itself or Israeli films. Kudos to Mr. Ebert for seeing this correctly.

Guy wrote: "Mark Hughes seems to be confusing the disputed Palestinian territories with undisputed borders of the State of Israel in his post above."

No, I'm not. As you will see...

Guy wrote: "In 1947, the United Nations Partition Plan defined a small Jewish state set next to a small Palestinian Arab state. Tel Aviv is within the borders of the UN Partition Plan and the internationally recognized Israeli borders established after the War of Independence. In 1967, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and groups of Palestinian guerrillas waged another genocidal war on Israel, but the result again did not turn in their favor and Israel conquered what is now internationally recognized as Palestinian land."

Wrong. The original smaller land of Tel Aviv was built on territory the UN Partition Plan placed in Israel territory, but the nearby land in Jaffa was in the Palestinian territory under the plan. But Tel Aviv expanded and swallowed up more land, including Jaffa. Tel Aviv exists on land that was part of the Palestinian territory under the UN Partition Plan, period.

The Six Days War was not waged against Israel by Arab states, that is an absolute falsehood that is demonstrably false. Despite the historical revision by those supporting Israel regardless of what Israel does, Israel launched the Six Days War, not the Arab states. The claim that an imminent attack was coming are demonstrably false, including by little facts like all of Egypt's tanks and planes were wiped out on the ground and far away from any supposed "front line", and the difficult fact (for those claiming Israel was "attacked") by the admission by Peled (of the Army general staff) to the government in 1967 that there was no threat of annihilation at all, contrary to the claims of "genocidal war" targeting Israel.

The fact regarding the actual troop numbers of Egypt demonstrate that there was no massing at the border. The Arab states were caught completely unaware and had not moved their armed forces into a state of readiness for war against Israel.

I strongly recommend the excellent book "Fateful Triangle" by Noam Chomsky (probably the most well-researched and best-written book on the subject of Israel and Palestine), which uses a huge body of evidence that includes actual documents from the Israeli government to demonstrate the truth about almost every aspect of the conflict, including the Six Days War. Also, the book "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestinian Conflict" by Norman Finkelstein, which further erodes the outright fiction put forward by Israel's apologists.

Guy wrote: "The truth is that justice is blind in Israel. It is true that racism exists in Israel. Arab citizens of Israel are treated similarly to the way African Americans are treated in our country. Even so, the Israeli Supreme Court has often ruled in favor of Arab rights."

No, the truth is that just claiming "justice is blind in Israel" while ignoring the facts regarding "justice" in Israel doesn't make it true. The factual record regarding detentions, torture, and murder of Palestinians by Israeli troops and police is well-documented. Claiming otherwise is willful blindness to the truth when one knows the facts but refuses to look at them or consider them.

Guy wrote: "In response to the fact that capital punishment is illegal in Israel, Mark Hughes wrote a paragraph-long non sequitur on Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israelis."

Non sequitur? Do you know what the term means? Apparently not. I demonstrated why the killings I refer to meet the definition of "executions". There's a difference between "capital punishment" and "executions", and you mixed the two as if the absence of legal capital punishment prevents executions from being a factual occurrence in Israel, which is demonstrably false, as the evidence proving execution of Palestinians is well-documented. It's simply absurd to claim otherwise. Whether you want to try and argue that those executions were justifiable is an entirely different matter (and one I would strenuously argue as well), but there is no question that the killings meet the definition of executions.

Guy wrote: "Nobody denies that children die unjustly during war. This is an fact of life when terrorists blend in with civilians by operating from hospitals, schools, and apartment buildings."

No, it's a "fact of life" when a state bombs civilians and target civilian populations in violation of international law, fully aware and accepting that their actions will cause massive civilian casualties and deaths. The "unjust" aspect is due to the unjust actions by the state of Israel in carrying out such attacks. The tired old claim about "terrorists" operating from hospitals etc as an excuse for Israel bombing hospitals and mass murdering Palestinians is an attempt to blame civilian deaths at the hands of illegal Israeli attacks on the people themselves, as it always leads to the inevitable argument that the civilians should not allow the "terrorists" to operate from these cities if the civilians wish to avoid being killed en mass.

Guy wrote: "Reports of these crimes are as documented as the mistakes of the Israeli army. Israeli soldiers who engage in reckless behavior are held accountable for their actions."

The prosecution of Israeli soldiers or commanders or government officials for the constant, decades-long practice of illegal warfare, war-crimes, targeting of civilians and Red Cross vehicles and population centers is not at all a common practice of prosecution. It is extremely rare for Israel to prosecute anyone for such things, and of course it has to be rare, otherwise most of the military and government would wind up in jail for it.

Further, using dismissive terminology like "reckless behavior" to describe mass murder is another typical method of attempting to mitigate the seriousness of what's happening.

Guy wrote: "I would say that the Israel's record on human rights in the past 20 years is a 6 out of 10. I'd rank the U.S. record as a 4. The Saudi Arabian record is a 0 out of 10. Mr. Hughes might reasonably disagree with my subjective rankings, but no unbiased person would say that Israel's record is on par with the world's worst human rights offenders."

This is akin to the claim that someone must be a member of Hamas to support the protest in Toronto. Claiming "no unbiased person" would disagree with you is just a false assertion, and moreover suggests that a great portion of the entire world -- including, for example, the UN -- must be "biased" for considering Israel's record to be terrible on human rights.

Also, regardless of where on the scale of "worst offenders" Israel falls, that wasn't the original point -- you stated that Israel has a "fair" record on human rights, which is different. Israel simply does not have a "fair" record on human rights, and for one example we could look at the numerous international reports and investigations and UN Resolutions and so on which demonstrate a long and inglorious history of severe human rights violations.

It's also illegitimate to pretend that any assessment of Israel's record and actions must first take into account the ranking of other human rights violators. We're talking about Israel, so why the constant attempts to deflect the questions about Israel's behavior and record by resort to waving fingers elsewhere? To distract, of course.

Guy wrote: "Mark Hughes then writes a paragraph or two complaining about how his tax dollars are going to Israel. The U.S. has a long history of propping up terrible dictatorships in the Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia."

Again with deflection by acting as if we can never consider Israel's behavior without first considering everything else in the world. Israel's record is Israel's record, and that's what's under discussion, however much you may wish it weren't.

I am well aware of the U.S. history of propping up terrible dictatorships around the world -- indeed, as you note, most notably in Latin America and the Middle East. I argue as strenuously against those examples as I do against Israel -- including having written detailed historical articles about the so called "human rights administration" of President Carter while he back genocidal governments and brutal dictatorships around the world. But those are not what we're talking about here, and just as I don't act like I can't criticize these other dictatorships since others exist around the world, I likewise reject the attempt to prevent consideration of Israel's crimes and atrocities based on the claim "you can't criticize Israel, there are other bad governments in the world."

Guy wrote: "Perhaps Mr. Hughes shares my objection to the use of U.S. tax dollars to support Saudi Arabia"

I absolutely oppose any U.S. support for the government of Saudi Arabia. They are one of the worst governments the U.S. supports in the region, along with for example Egypt.

But we aren't talking about Saudi Arabia. We're talking about Israel and about my tax dollars buying bullets and bombs and planes, building walls and allowing settlements. Just as I have every right and reason to oppose Plan Columbia and the U.S. support and funding of ever-increasing militarization in Columbia to support a violent and oppressive regime there, I have every right and reason to also oppose the same thing in Israel.

Let's just ask the logical extension of your own question -- do you abstain from criticism of U.S. support for Saudi Arabia, since the U.S. also supports Columbia and Egypt? Do you feel you cannot have a discussion highlighting the wrongs committed by those governments, since there are other examples to consider? Of course you don't, since you criticized them right here.

It is only in the case of Israel where we are expected to cease any and all complaint and opposition based on the existence of other bad governments. It's an illegitimate argument.

Guy wrote: "When, in 2000, American mediators headed by Bill Clinton proposed Palestinian sovereignty over 97% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace, the Israeli side accepted the offer. The Palestinian side rejected the offer and began the Second Intifada only days after the peace summit failed. The entire world, including the Arab world, was shocked by the Palestinian rejection of the deal."

This is a common misrepresentation of what went on, what was really offered, and so on. It likewise ignored international law, for example with regard to handing over all of Jerusalem to Israel and erasing the internationally recognized right of return for refugees.

The claims about how much land was to be given to the Palestinians is utterly false. The territory you claim was being given to the Palestinians was in fact divided into three areas, each with different and increasingly limited Palestinian control. Some areas would be under joint Palestinian-Israeli control, some completely under Israeli control while Palestinian civilians would technically be under the PA's control, and some under full PA authority. Israeli settlements in the West Bank would remain.

Each "peace process" has offered the Palestinians an increasingly shrinking size of territory, and increasingly limitations on their actual control. Israel continued expanding settlements, constructing about 7,500 new housing units in West Bank settlements while the total number of new settlers in the West Bank increased by roughly 10,000 every single year in the several years after the accords. The number of Israeli settlers in the West Bank today is double the number in 1993, Israel has confiscated in excess of 60,000 acres of land from Palestinians for building new housing for settlers and by-pass roads for Israeli citizens, and violated numerous provisions of the agreement from the very outset.

Support for the accords in Israel was very narrow, and a vote of support by the Knesset passed by only two votes more than a majority. Some relevant information about the true intentions of Israel -- like not actually giving over the land they supposedly would give under the accords -- is demonstrated for example here:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/secret-map-reveals-israels-west-bank-plan-1264158.html

In addition, while supporters of Israel like to claim that Palestinian attacks against Israel demonstrated their "real intentions" and helped sabotage the process, this claim ignores things like the massacres of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis in the aftermath of the accords (including, for example, an IDF soldier who opened fire at a mosque and killed between 40 and 50+ Palestinians).

Pretending that the peace talks were embraced by Israel, would've given Palestinians their freedom and a large piece of land under their sole authority, and that this peace process failed due to Palestinian rejection of it and subsequent actions, is a gross distortion of history and reality.

Josh Wink wrote: "Ebert uses the review of the flim as a platform for his own dismissal of the film's empathy towards some under served narratives in current cinema. To that end, we grasp what Ebert thinks of Palestinians, Islamic views of martyrdom -- their complexity, misuse, legitimate rage of the central protagonists and dismisses it almost outright, with what can only be called an obvious contempt. ... Now read his fawning review of Speilberg's Munich, a profoundly racist and deeply damaging film to the cause of any real dialogue. In the film, Speilberg has the Palestinian bomber couch his motives in pure anger. ... Read the reviews for yourself. those who take Ebert's political position will read nothing to object to -- any one else who cares about some justice in the public sphere, will see just the kind of views that have angered Belafonte, Mortensen and others for so long."

These assertions could not be farther from the truth. Like Ebert, I am baffled that you could have possibly gotten that severely flawed interpretation of his review of "Paradise Now", for starters. He does not at all dismiss the film's empathy, nor does he in any way, shape, or form denigrate Palestinians or their cause. He asks serious questions about martyrdom, and he notes -- rightly, I believe -- that the religious aspects are not as ultimately interesting as deeper issues related to these sorts of decisions and actions. It tells us far less about someone when we see their actions motivated by religious sense of reward as opposed to the inner workings of their conscience and political motivations going to the heart of a cause they feel so strongly about that they will both kill and die for that cause.

As someone with a lot of connections to the Palestinian community for a very long time, I can tell you now that if you dismiss the role of anger in the motivations of Palestinians of any sort -- simply civilians, armed fighters, politicians, or suicide bombers -- then you are simply very underinformed about the situation. And you should consider the potential implications of your own viewpoint here, if you regard anger as a lesser, unimportant, and somehow shameful aspect of motivation among Palestinians.

"Munich" happens to have had a broad underlying narrative rejecting Israeli policies of retaliation against Palestinians, and Spielberg attempts to demonstrate with the use of the Arab fighters the fact that the Palestinian resistance and opposition to Israel is not simply "religious fanaticism" or racial hatred as is typically claimed, but rather arises from otherwise ordinary citizens with very serious intellectual motivations arising from their anger under occupation. The film maintains a realistic depiction of the Israeli reaction to this, of course, but the underlying theme is a strong one born out in the final resolution of the story and the arc of the main character.

Whatever else one finds to criticize in the film or in Spielberg's own overriding sentiments toward Israel, it is a big mistake to dismiss the importance of the change that took place in Spielberg's thinking and portrayal of the conflict through this film, and that it allowed for a serious examination of attitudes and questions that had previously been verboten in mainstream Hollywood depictions (which is why the film was met with such strong criticism and outrage from staunch supporters of Israel, and why they attacked Spielberg for his decision to make the film).

Finally, the claim that those who care about justice will see in Ebert's reviews something to hold in contempt -- notice you used the word "anger", by the way -- is completely inaccurate and suggests that caring about this issue and social justice requires rejection of Ebert's reviews. Mr. Ebert gave a very thoughtful review (and gave the film 3 stars, for goodness' sake, which is a positive review) and took interest in the complexities of the issue. He simply noted that with religion as the primary motivation of focus in the film, the narrative is far more limited than it could be through exploring intellectual and social influences. That view is correct, and in fact the focus on religious motivation in most films like this one is something lots of Palestinian activists will tell you is unfortunate, because it avoids some of the moral complexity that actually exits and doesn't do enough to explore societal situations under occupation.

(As a side note, I strongly recommend "The War Within" as the best film examining suicide bombers, motivations, some of the intellectual arguments Ebert referenced in his review of "Paradise Now" coupled with religious examinations as well, and the role of the so-called "war on terror" in creating new fighters and bombers. Mr. Ebert might recommend "The Terrorist" as another of the best films on this topic, and I'd agree that it's also one of the best and a great examination of the deeper complexities.)

Sirotnikov wrote: "Now break out of the thought experiment and tell me how is it any different for Israel."

How would it have been different? Israel is a nation-state, implementing a political PR campaign through a film festival. If there were a Palestinian state government with a political PR campaign and the festival had become a willing participant in that nation-state political PR campaign, it would still be politicizing the festival and would be something to complain about. Lacking a nation-state or government PR campaign, if the festival simply chose to showcase Palestinian films, it would be different and acceptable -- just as it would have been acceptable if the festival simply showcased Israeli films without joining as part of the Israeli government PR campaign. You are trying to cloud the issue with false comparisons.

Sirotnikov wrote: "So do you honestly think the promotion of these films secretly serves a devious goal other than promoting cultural understanding and tolerance? You know well enough that the opposite is true, as is evident by the first version of your post."

No, the opposite is not true. And yes, promotion of these films through a national political PR campaign does serve a goal other than promoting cultural understanding and tolerance -- it explicitly, as stated by the government of Israel itself, is to try and improve the global public perception of Israel in the context of current negative sentiment toward Israel (predominantly due to the Gaza invasion and the attack on Lebanon). That's undeniable, period. It's a stated fact in the Brand Israel campaign.

Sirotnikov wrote: "All these allegations of re-branding come down to exposing foreign audiences to the variances in Israeli political agenda, and the intricacies of Israeli life. Also at some points the complex Israeli view of the conflict that is honest and not marred by government propaganda."

It's not "allegations of re-branding" -- it is factually re-branding, it's the stated intent of the Brand Israel campaign (notice the word "brand" in there?). And it is shockingly absurd to claim it promotes a view "not marred by government propaganda" when the campaign is inherently government propaganda. It's a massive re-branding campaign through use of propaganda, and to pretend otherwise and refer to re-branding as merely an "allegation" is ridiculous.

Tom Dark, you rightly highlight one of the most difficult aspects of discussing and figuring out how to deal with this issue within our own country -- the fact that, while there are indeed plenty of reasons to oppose Israeli policies and even to oppose Zionism, this is an issue that's been used as (to take a term from the Evolution thread) a "wedge issue" by white supremacists and racists to attempt to gain legitimacy for their hateful ideas and agendas. It has become absurd enough that here in D.C., white nationalists will hold events where they accuse Israel of being equivalent to Nazis -- whatever one thinks of the comparison, seeing it made as a criticism of Israel by neo-Nazis in D.C. is rather insane.

I have been involved in events and movements supportive of the Palestinian cause, and in opposition to Israeli policies. And for the past several years, I have increasingly warned activists and others of the very real danger of the merger of legitimate human rights work and the agenda of neo-Nazis and other racists who seek to blend into the opposition to Israel. It's been a growing problem, in part because of the willingness of activists to look the other way (primarily out of fear that any admission that some of the anti-Israel arguments are coming from racists would taint any and all opposition to Israel).

That willful ignorance -- a term I used above in relation to the opposite side -- exists within the supposedly liberal and progressive movements as well on many issues, including this one. While I do personally believe that Zionism has inherent racist implications and notions of colonial mentality, I also see how very true it is that the term has been co-opted by racist groups and others as a euphemism for anti-Jewish hatred, another horrible way in which the valid opposition to Israel is severely harmed not only by such actions by racists, but also by the willingness of legitimate opposition to ignore and deny that this is happening.

For any human rights movement to be successful on this issue, it simply has to recognize the worst elements in its midst and openly admit it and drive those extremists and racists out.

As a strange side note to this aspect of the issue, there is an annual conference of white supremacists in the D.C. Metro area, called "American Renaissance" (held by an organization/publication of the same name) that is the so-called "intellectual" arm of the white supremacist movement. All suits and ties, "research" presentations, and such. What makes this particular conference noteworthy is that it embraces -- and is enthusiastically attended by -- Zionists. This particular group of white supremacists argue against anti-Jewish sentiment and says that Jews are Aryans, too. The conference forbids any negative mentions of Jewish people, Israel, or Zionism. And as I said, it is actively attended and supported by a segment of the Zionist community.

The "boycott" is nonsense. I think both the Israelis and Palestinians are idiots. They're both too heavily influenced by right-wing extremists. But...

1) If you read the statement, their issue with Israel goes beyond any modern concerns -- namely the post '67 borders; they specifically single out Israel's creation in 1948 as the source of the problem. This has nothing to do with Israel's actions. It's about Israel's existence.

2) Second, the Gaza incident was the result of the Hamas' doing -- they were the ones indiscriminately firing rockets into Israel. The West Bank wasn't attacked.

3) Gaza is currently run by Hamas, internationally recognized as a terrorist organization, and they call for the destruction of Israel. Hamas came to power in Gaza by militarily overthrowing the elected Fatah. The current situation in Gaza is because of this.

4) There are effectively two separate Palestinian entities at this point. Gaza is run by Hamas. The West Bank is run by Fatah. There is no single generic "Palestinian People" anymore.

Marie Haws says:
'I see that as the only real solution, myself; make it so the gun you point at your enemy is literally the same one you point at yourself.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When the devotee who actually believes in this 72 virgin nonsense, has a gun pointed at a nonbeliever, a 'kuffir', that if fired would also kill his identical twin standing behind this person, would the devotee pull the trigger?
Sure! Then he'd blow himself up so he could actually get 144 'hot babes' from GOD.
Would these girls be preteens as preferred by Mohammed?...God, being imperfect and all; I wonder if He'd toss in a few 72 year olds for the brothers? Hey, don't knock it till you've tried it. God being imperfect might even toss in a few chimps.
Anyway, haven't you ever noticed the deliberate presence of civilians, or even the deliberate presence of immediate families, in almost all these locations, the islamic killers engage in jihad from? (not to include all Muslims of course!)
I've heard it boasted by Muslims; that while Westerners and non Muslims claim to know how to live, a good Muslim knows how to die.
This 'pie in the sky' game never was an equivalency between peoples who want control of these lands, and education and money has nothing to do with it.
It's likely why they've had it for the better part of their history when they first used women to help defeat the Byzantines in 733. They could always get more women. Eh, Marie?
I don't see any more logic to condemning a whole population to a sharia law based Islamic society than to Hitler's Fascist society.
These protesters are nuts in my estimation.

Any paean to Rogers knowledge of film, writing, sensitivity, wit and humanity is fine by me. Reading his reviews and journal is always a rewarding experience.( The quality of the comments he elicits is pretty fine ,too - generally well above the usual close-minded mud-slinging that is too often the norm.)

As to the protest, it seems clear to me that if the TIFF wasn't complicit in the branding campaign, then they were gamed. Either way, that's pretty depressing. And it's too bad, because the City to City concept is fine, but there are so many places they could have started with,leaving Tel-Aviv for some other, less controversial year. After this, will each subsequent choice be suspected of ulterior motives, hidden agendas ?

The only rational solution to the political problem is the two state solution , and the return to pre-1967 borders, with a shared Jerusalem the most reasonable compromise.Now if we only knew how to get there.

Trying to return this discussion to film:

Everyone should read Jane Fonda's response to the controversy:

http://janefonda.com/expanding-the-narrative/

All I know is that I would pay - money! - to watch a pro-wrestling style Texas cage match involving the celebs of both sides....

RDS wrote: "When the devotee who actually believes in this 72 virgin nonsense"

As opposed to the devotees who believe God gave them the land by orders to massacre everybody currently living there, the same devotees who believe that history grants them the right to form a racially-based state on other people's land now, grants them a right to practice ethnic cleansing and massacres of civilian populations, and grants them a right to ignore international law and human rights because they were chosen by God to take and keep that land under religious notions that override human law and concepts of justice, equality, and humane treatment?

RDS wrote: "Anyway, haven't you ever noticed the deliberate presence of civilians, or even the deliberate presence of immediate families, in almost all these locations, the islamic killers engage in jihad from?"

Have you noticed the deliberate targeting of civilians for decades or even the deliberate collective punishment against the entire Palestinian population, or even the bombing of homes containing not just a targeted person but their entire family? And notice that Israel builds military installations and weapons depots etc amid civilian populations (should I call them "Jewish killers engaged in racial-superiority warfare?" or might you shrilly scream objections to comparable use of terminology? of course you would)?

RDS wrote: "This 'pie in the sky' game never was an equivalency between peoples who want control of these lands, and education and money has nothing to do with it."

Not equivalent, indeed -- one is a well-armed and well-funded nation-state waging aggressive warfare against a civilian population, enjoying the refusal to stand up against their war crimes and violations of human rights amid apologists who are contented to frequently just toss out racially tinged condemnation of Arabs and Palestinians while helping falsify the factual record and history. Ring any bells there?

RDS wrote: "I don't see any more logic to condemning a whole population to a sharia law based Islamic society than to Hitler's Fascist society."

The Hitler comparison! Okay, so let's try considering what you'd say about the Jews in Warsaw who resisted the Nazi occupation and fought back. Or the black South Africans who resisted the racially-based government of Apartheid.

And as for condemning a whole population to sharia law, how about condemning both the original population and then the new population of the land to a racially-based society created by a Zionist movement overtly lifting the claim of the "homeland" from religious teachings, and fought for by terrorists who blew up the King David hotel to murder British soldiers and government officials in order to try and drive out the British and obtain a mandate for a Jewish racially-based homeland on territory supposedly promised by God? You have no problems with that, do you? Of course not.

Moreover, it shows a stunning lack of information to claim a Palestinian state would be based on "sharia law" or would be an Islamic society -- I suppose you aren't aware that the PA (like the PLO) is secular and non-religious? Or that Hizb'allah (unlike Hamas) is religious but predominantly secular in the services and programs it runs and provides for Arabs? Hamas won elections in Gaza precisely due to the overwhelming anger and desperation of the population there in the face of horrible human rights violations and massacres by Israel that targeted civilians. Suggesting that a Palestinian state would be an Islamic society based on sharia law is absurd and just shows how little you know about the situation.

Mark Hughes wrote, "Jaffa was in the Palestinian territory under the [UN partition] plan."

This is untrue as this map illustrates.

The claim that the Six-Day War was started by Israel is also untrue. I recommend Six Days of War by Michael B. Oren. That book details the decision by Egypt to close the Straits of Tiran, expel UN peace keepers, and amass troops on the border. It also details the Syrian diversion of water. It is true that Israel made the first strike, but not before the above actions, which amounted to a declaration of war.

In response to my assertion that justice is blind in Israel, Mark Hughes again confuses Israel with the Palestinian territories. The point is that the courts do not treat Arab citizens of Israel better or worse than it treats Jewish citizens of Israel. Palestinian Arabs (i.e. the Arabs living in the disputed territories) are not covered under Israeli law because they are not Israeli citizens. Even so, the Israeli Supreme Court often made decisions that favor Palestinian rights over Israeli security concerns.

Mark Hughes believes that it is rare for Israeli war crimes to be prosecuted in Israel. While I am not an expert on Israel's military judiciary, I do know that detailed reports and investigations are done following any irregularity in the rules of engagement.

Mark Hughes then writes that he believes that the United Nations resolutions on Israel are legitimate and accuses me of changing the subject to divert the focus on Israel. I believe the excessive attention given to Israel by the United Nations does not help the Palestinian attain statehood and peace. It diverts attention away from more pressing issues. Consider that in 1998, when Congo was invaded and reports of torture and cannibalism were widespread and 2.5 million people died in 3 years, the United Nations refrained from issuing any resolutions on the issue. That year, the UN issued a resolution condemning Israeli construction on a barren hill in Jerusalem. I ask Mr. Hughes: which is the more pressing issue? How does this singular focus on Israel bring Palestinians and Israelis closer to peace?

Mark Hughes writes, "I ... reject the attempt to prevent consideration of Israel's crimes and atrocities based on the claim 'you can't criticize Israel, there are other bad governments in the world.'"

I believe that Israel ought to be criticized vigorously. Pick up any Israeli newspaper and you will see scathing criticisms of Israeli policy. However, I believe that Israel must be criticized in context. The bad apples are those who demonize Israel and delegitimizatize its existence.

Mark Hughes then interprets the Camp David Summit in 2000 differently than the rest of the world. The facts he gives on the terms of the agreement are wrong and incomplete. He can believe Arafat if he wishes. I will believe Clinton.

Mark Hughes writes, "Each 'peace process' has offered the Palestinians an increasingly shrinking size of territory, and increasingly limitations on their actual control."

I wish that the Palestinian Arabs had accepted peace and statehood when it had been offered to them in 1936, 1947, 1967, and 2000. In each of these cases, the Israelis accepted the offer while the Palestinians rejected it. Consider what could have happened in 1947 had the Palestinian Arabs accepted peace. The world could have celebrated the 62nd anniversary of both Palestinian and Israeli statehood this year.

Guy,

You are opposed to America's business transactions with Saudi Arabia, because you believe that Saudi Arabia is funding terrorism. 2 weeks ago, a suicide bomber attempted to assassinate Prince Mohammed bin Nayef in Jeddah. The Saudi prince is credited with anti-terror campaigns.

Osama Bin Laden's family rejected him. The government banished him.

Within 2 weeks, I'll be back in Riyadh. It will be my third time there as a teacher. Each time I go, I check for recent crime activity. What I've found is that the government leads a successful operation of rounding up terrorists of their own. The attack on the prince is the scariest thing that has happened there in 5 years.

What you have is a country that is dictated by Islam. Like any other book, it is open to interpretation. Like with other religions, it gets scary when people interpret it to an extent that calls for violence to others. The common people of Saudi Arabia do not want terrorism. The Royal Family is in charge and do not want it either. It would seem to me that a royal family would not allow one of its family members to blatantly run a program against terrorism if they themselves were funding it.

I would not dispute that someone in Saudi Arabia has money and is contributing to terrorism; I don't know the answer to that. But I don't know that it's fair to make an accusation against the whole country when it seems to me that they want peace.

Jeremy Smith: "I was not implicating that Roger should not write about things non-movie related. Read Roger's original comment, read my post again, count to ten, and then think."

Roger's entry was derived from events at the Toronto Film Festival. The discussion delved into hardcore Middle East conflict. At worst, he may have said some things he wasn't sure about, and then claimed not to be the god of wisdom on Israel and Palestine, so why care what he has to say.

You crept in at that remark to belittle him for his journal at large, which includes treasures of information and stories that he is sure about.

I got it the first time. I don't get what I'm not getting. Although I didn't count to ten as instructed.

Thanks for the clarification of the Brand Israel link which was long denied by the festival but was just confirmed by the Mayor of Tel Aviv in an interview with the Canadian Jewish News.

But on the further point of penalizing filmmakers, since almost all the drafters were themselves filmmakers, the letter made it very clear that it is not a boycott of either Israeli filmmakers or of the Toronto International Film Festival. Still, it is difficult when films and filmmakers, however independent minded, end up being used for political propaganda purposes as Brand Israel attempts to do. This is why 1500 people, including over 60 Israelis, signed this letter. Among them are important figures in international cinemas and some of the world's leading intellectuals including Slavoj Zizek, Fredric Jameson, Judith Butler, John Berger, Hamid Dabashi and Howard Zinn.

The specific TIFF context is that except for the Canadian shorts section, the festival does not program by national cinema. This celebration of Israeli cinema comes out of the blue.

Sorry, I came late, so I'm catching up.

From what I gather, the crime here is that some Canadians and the Israeli government arranged for a showing of 10 films emphasizing contemporary life in Tel Aviv at a Toronto film festival and--although no one takes issue with the artists or the actual films--that a group of extreme leftists denounces this because the positive views of Israel portrayed in the films don't suit their anti-Israel agenda?

#$%@*! Why can't the politics be left at the door? Why not just enjoy (or not) the damn films? Does EVERYTHING now have to be a political act? Are you a pawn in Israel's evil strategy just by enjoying an entertaining film about Tel Aviv that neglects to paint Israel as war-mongering child butcherers? Aren't you smart enough to know that there's more to Israel than the Palestinian situation? Aren't you adult enough to make up your own damned mind?

Certainly you would not complain if the shoe were on the other foot: if a Palestinian film festival failed to show all Palestinians as extremists and suicide bombers. Would that not be an equivalent deception? Yet, you would likely welcome it, simply because you extend the freedom to people with whom you sympathize the right to define one's people apart from its critics. Not so for those you don't, I guess.

Roger, your first draft of this blog was much better and of greater service to the filmgoer. The revised version seems to suggest that, no matter the quality of the films, enjoying them may be some kind of political violation. Frankly, we don't need political officers to vet our filmgoing experiences...

Ebert: Nobody objects to the films. They are definitely not all pro-Israel or pro-Tel Aviv. I don't believe you have looked at the reason for the controversy.

Peter Fawthrop--"You crept in at that remark to belittle him for his journal at large, which includes treasures of information and stories that he is sure about."

False. I challenged Ebert on his reply to a post, in which he stated:

"I'm not qualified to debate wider points of Middle Eastern realities -- and why should anyone care what I think in this area, anyway?"

This seemed illogical to me, because if Ebert refrains from debating wider points of Middle Eastern realities because he's "not qualified," why does he debate wider points about things as significant as the origin of life (evolution vs. ID)? Is he qualified to debate that? Of course not, no more qualified than he is to debate Middle Eastern realities...but he has been more than willing to debate evolution vs. ID. So, it seemed strange to me that he was using the reason "I'm not qualified" followed up with "why should anyone care what I think..." when it comes to the topic of the Middle East. Ebert himself said this was because "in the areas of evolution and ID I'm certain I am correct." He didn't state "because I am qualified based on having a Ph.D. in biology and can therefore debate evolution vs. ID." I do not care if Ebert debates Middle Eastern realities. I do not care if Ebert debates ID vs. evolution. I was questioning his logic. THAT is what you are not getting. I thoroughly enjoy reading both his reviews and his blogs, which I why I was here in the first place. You can choose to continue believing that I wrote that to belittle him, but you are incorrect. I'm perplexed by your inability to understand this. Maybe if I would have told you to count to five...

Ebert: I feel qualified to discuss evolution because I have informed myself to my own satisfaction on the subject. As a writer in a public place, I am prudent enough to try to focus on those areas where I stand a smaller chance of making a fool of myself.

When I choose the wrong area, I say with the philosopher:

Quae nocent, saepe docent.

thank you for amending this entry. it is important that public figures such as yourself have the humility to correct their mistakes. i hope that the discussion and debate at TIFF will raise awareness about the violence and injustices perpetuated by israel. i am one of many american jews who stand in solidarity with palestinians.

RDS, it's not unreasonable that an Islamic man expecting 72 virgins in heaven might be happy to be put to death. My Viking ancestors died expecting similar. By the same token, a Christian man expecting to have to bow up and down in front of God 24 hours a day for all eternity might not look forward to his death quite so much.

I'd find either thing quite tiresome I'm sure, but while enclosed in this mortal coil, your obsessive hammering on the old myths of some religion created for a simpler peoples, as your means of damning those who grew up with them, is even moreso. While you are at it, don't forget that Talmudic passages say it's okay for Hebrews to lie to, steal from, cheat, rape and murder anybody who isn't a Hebrew, okay? Come to think of it, that's how the early Mormons were too.

That's how quite a few governments are right now, despite all the sanctimonious lip-service of goodness and rightness of any ideological persuasion.

Mark, I'm not sure willful ignorance is so much the core heating those who prefer to make this issue an unsolvable problem except by nuking as obsession is. Individual by individual it's like trying to open a live clamshell with one's fingernails. A big one.

Just after the WTC was demolished, Donald Rumsfeld announced an internet program where Pentagon hirees would go from site to site "informing" the public about how wicked Islamics are. I came across several sites with these irresponsible and dishonest plants.

They were there in 24/7 teams with their "muzzies" and "72 Virgins" and the identical spiel RDS has been slipping in wherever he can for the months I've been reading this blog. He is ignoring all other input just as they attempted to do. This is either willful ignorance or paid ignorance, if not both.

Elsewhere were, and still are, the "Jews did it" websites. 24/7 reports of how wicked Jews are, dancing around the ruined WTC.

I took it on myself to look into some of these creeps in detail. I made friends. The first thing to look for is, if they're the "ordinary Americans" they claim to be, how can they afford to be a constant presence? Where are they getting the money to run such an operation? And so on. It comes pretty clear that somebody's paying them and they're lying about it.

In several cases, they started out with a cock and bull story about doing this for free, and eventually, strangely enough, wound up with the same advertisers, obscure little products from obscure little companies.

One claimed he was now making a fine living on donations from readers. He didn't know I'd made pals with his "anti-zionist" girlfriend and learned the truth -- enough to know somebody was paying him he didn't want his readers to know about.

As to anyone taking the righteous side, excusing the vicissitudes of a war of ideology, kindly take a ball peen hammer and smash the fingers of one of your hands up with it, or have a friend do it -- so that you'll have a better feel for what you think you're talking about.

Ebert: Me, I'd rather spend eternity with God. It's not easy, having to deal with 72 women you've deflowered. They all think you owe them.

Peter Fawthrop,

I hope I didn't give anyone the impression that I dislike Saudi Arabians. I don't judge people by their nationality. I understand that Saudi Arabia has an internal problem with terrorism and I hope that they can deal with that problem in as humane a way possible.

That being said, I think you might have missed my point. The human rights situation in Saudi Arabia is appalling by any reasonable standard. Beheadings are increasingly common. Women are treated like cattle. Homosexuality is criminalized. Freedom of religion, assembly, and speech are virtually non-existent. One might answer by saying that their culture values the Koran as ours values the U.S. Constitution and we ought not to judge. While this argument may be logically sound, it makes the concept of universal human rights meaningless.

"Ebert: Me, I'd rather spend eternity with God. It's not easy, having to deal with 72 women you've deflowered. They all think you owe them."

Roger, that's a pitch-perfect response. Thanks for bringing levity to an otherwise intense debate.

Ebert: "I feel qualified to discuss evolution because I have informed myself to my own satisfaction on the subject. As a writer in a public place, I am prudent enough to try to focus on those areas where I stand a smaller chance of making a fool of myself.

When I choose the wrong area, I say with the philosopher:

Quae nocent, saepe docent."

Well, that makes some sense. Whether others would say you truly are qualified is up for debate... but no matter. I don't care what you write about--evolution, ID, the Middle East, abortion, The Wiggles... my only point was that I disagreed with your logic, nothing more, nothing less, which is what I was trying to tell your sensitive friend Mr. Fawthrop. But trying to get him to see this has become "arduum sane munus."

Ebert: Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur!

It is very disappointing that Mr. Ebert has succumbed to pressure and misinformation with his "amendment" to this entry.

The focus on Tel Aviv is indeed an effort to brand and showcase the city. But there is nothing wrong with that. Tel Aviv is celebrating it's 100th anniversary. It is the site of the youngest UNESCO World Heritage Site for the "White City." It is a culturally rich, diverse city with significant meaning despite it's relative youth.

And yet it seems Israelis cannot walk anywhere, do anything, without being viewed through the prism of the rather unfortunate and heartbreaking war with their neighbors. Tel Aviv, and Israel, are quite right in saying "Wait a second, we are not all about war. Our people are people too. Our artists are artists too. Take a look at our city in a new light." And there is nothing improper about TIFF showcasing this. TIFF has its own agenda and can use Tel Aviv as part of it.

The counterpoint to the protestors would be to protest a "Palestinian Film Festival" because one justifiably opposes the culture of suicide bombing, terrorism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, and religious fundamentalism that has become so endemic in Palestine. Despite that, I would never call for a cultural boycott against Palestinian artists and would not demand that politically correct Hollywood stars protest a group of filmakers from, say, Ramallah.

As you pointed out in your original entry, which was spot on, the films demonstrate that people in the middle can get along. Well, maybe that's what Tel Aviv was TRYING to say. And yet because you agreed with the message that was orchestrated, it somehow becomes manipulative?

Maybe Israel wants to "rebrand" itself because it justifiably can point to the fact that it has a beautiful, perhaps complex side that is always ignored in normal media coverage. There's nothing wrong with a country wanting to promote its artists. That's all that was done here.

Ebert: Me, I'd rather spend eternity with God. It's not easy, having to deal with 72 women you've deflowered. They all think you owe them.

So you're saying you'd rather have an eternal backache than an eternal headache? Miserere nobis!

>>Ebert: Both sides could use some re-branding.

Yes, but yet you are picking a side critical of Israel's purported re-branding.

Mark Hughes - You're dishonest on several accuonts.

First, because there have been precedents of Palestinian attempts at re-branding or simply promoting their narrative in films and no one peeped.

Second, because there is absolutely no shred of evidence of the Israeli government's involvement in the TFF. The CJN is misquoted by omission and juxtaposition. If you read these both original CJN articles:

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15198&Itemid=86

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17634&Itemid=86

it is clear that both the Israeli mayor and the Israeli consul speak about the Brand Israel campaign as totally separate event from the TFF, and the Israeli government involvement is limited to the bus poster campaign - not the TFF schedule or programming.

A third link is:

And then especially read this one:
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15272&Itemid=86

Which makes it even more clear that the TFF is a separate independent event and the Israeli government campaign is merely using it as a 'piggy back ride'.

If you want to criticize the Govt. of Israel for doing so, fine. Claiming the whole idea is an Israeli government ploy is factually false, and has been denied by everyone involved on both sides.

Third - you are dishonest about your motives. The vile anti-Israeli protest set up is a much more flagrant and cynical politicization of the festival than the movies ever were. Most movies carry no propaganda message what so ever (some of them predate recent events by years), and those who do deal with the conflict are well far from the Israeli govt. position.

The only side that intentionally and constantly keeps bringing politics into this is the anti-Israeli crowd, which brings up Israeli-Palestinian conflict into ANY event that has to do with Israel, no matter how unrelated it is, in hope to tarnish Israel's image, and raise awareness of the Palestinian narrative.

You and most people protesting, reject the mere mentioning of Tel Aviv that does not end with "evil murderers" as a political statement.

If that is not indicative of flagrant political bias on YOUR part, then I don't know what is.

A large part of the films are as a-political as one gets. The rest are demonstrably left wing of the govt. position. To claim they are somehow government policy is a sham.

To try and claim that mentioning Israel outside of the context of the conflict is a political statement, is even a bigger sham.

To misquote and misrepresent quotes by Israeli officials to tarnish the festival, is a sham.

And finally, there's quite enough to discuss even if we limit ourselves to this event. Funny how fast a biased yet lengthy review of Israeli-Palestinian politics and history is mentioned by people who claim to be "against politicization".

It was on this week that Quentin Tarantino came to Israel, with Christof Waltz, to participate in the Israeli premier of Inglorious Basterds, which took place on Tuesday. When it has become so commonplace to criticize Israel or portray it as the arch-devil with the Palestenians as the poor innocent lambs, it's very refershing to see one of the most famous and beloved directors of our time coming to Israel to participate in the premier of his newest movie. And correct me if I'm wrong, but Tarantino is not Jewish, so one can't accuse him of going with "His People".

I'm not saying that Israel is above reproach nor that the Palestinians don't have much merit in their claims and complaints, nor that they should not have a state. I am saying, that it has become so commonplace to criticize Israel and to portray it as the great devil, that people seem to have forgotten that there are two sides to every story, and thet the Palestinians, by virtue of their use of terrorism against innocent men, women and children; and by virtue of their not agreeing to recognize even one inch of Israel as a Jewish homeland have merited at least some of the distrust and hostility Israel shows towards them. Their constant refusal to recognize Israel indicates to many Israelis, that they in fact don't want to see us here, that they intend to "throw us into the ocean" at the earliest possibility. How do you counteract such an image? by showing goodwill on your part. When Israel offered the Palestinians almost 100% of the Territories, why didn't they accept? Why did the second intifada begin mere days later? could it have been because their leaders were not, nay are not, ready to accept the existance of Israel as a Jewish state? Not even some part of it? Neither side is blameless, that's my point, and I believe it is very unfair to only pick on the misgivings and deeds of one side. Because it takes two to tango.

And regarding QT's movie - I think he should be recognized as a guest of honor in Israel from now on, due to this movie. Maybe even given a citizenship award or something of the sort. For I, my friends, and all the people who watched the movie with us, got a great kick and had a lot of fun in his movie, particularly as it gives vent to that basic want for vengence and for some ass kicking of Nazis by Jews. QT says here, that although such ass kicking didn't happen in real life, he's going to accomodate the desire for it by the only means at his disposal: the cinema. A wonderful movie, and Christof Waltz deserves an oscar for his great performance. Personally, I also loved it that Tarantino returned to dialogue - the aspect for which I fell inlove with him back in the 90's - abandoning almost ciompletely the action aspect which was so dominant in Kill Bill and Death Proof. May he continue writing such great dialogues...

Ebert: There's something uncanny and almost insidious about his dialogue.

Jeremy Smith,

Counting to five worked. I now understand that you would like Roger to discuss anything and everything he feels like, and you are his supporter. I am sorry I muddied your strawberry field with my touchy shoes.

Allay isay wellay; Allay isay forgottenay.
(That's Pig Latin, as I am not well versed in Latin Latin.)

I commend you, Roger Ebert, on your honesty. It takes real courage to change your mind, it also takes real courage to say anything on the subject of Israel/Palestine that doesn't reflect mindless support for Israel. Predictably, you've recieved a lot of responses attempting to educate you, and a few commenting on movies too.

The protest had a lot to do with the recent attack by Israel on Gaza. If you're interested and have time, a full report on Gaza can be found here: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/FactFindingMission.htm, also here: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/library/report-useofforce-israel.html and
and here: http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE150152009&lang=e
I in fact advise you to read it, or any of them. In terms of education, realize that the events described are representative of the conflict. Much that's described in these reports resembles Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 2006, 1982, and technological advances aside attacks on Jaffa and neighboring villages (now part of Tel Aviv) in 1948.

But speaking of movies, somehow when I think of Gaza I think of "Escape from LA" (I'm sure there was a movie of that name). But reality is so different than imagination. Also from propaganda. Please, give me a clear deliniation - I want no mingling of Israeli rebranding with artistic endeavor.

Tom Dark: "Bow up and down in front of God for eternity" - Who solicited that crap to you? How does one bow up, anyway? As for me, I've been told of streets of gold, lions and lambs, the moon and sun replaced by God's light, and my two little hedgehogs who died in 1996. All of that is in the Bible, except for one little addition. Amen.

"Brand Israel"?

I'm shocked... shocked that a film festival is used for public relations purposes.

Mark says:
As opposed to the dev

Mark says:
As opposed to the devotees who believe God gave them the land by orders to massacre everybody currently living there, the same devotees who believe that history grants them the right to form a racially-based state
_____________________________________________________________

Mark,
I was not talking about what is in history 'opposed to' this protest regarding Palestine and Israel; what is in the world 'in parallel behavior' of this protest at TIff, or who else in this world is also 'crazy beyond words'; as, I suggested these Hollywood stars, Fonda , Mortenson and Portman to be ... who evidently don't factor in the Fascist nature of that which they support.
But mine was in response, mostly to Marie's post, as to what I saw as a problem regarding Islamic behavior and the idea of a 'imperfect God'.
Jane Fonda, in fact, retracted her protest.
The world is, of course, full of all kinds of things besides the evils of Islam and sharia law -- sharia law that comes sooner of later necessarily along with Islam.
My comments pertained to a simple observation that sharia law is indeed a practice of Muslims, as was recently employed in the Indonesia's Acef region; and, sharia law, (You know, that body of Islamic law already used in many Muslim countries that involves amputations for petty theft and stoning for sexual offenses), tends to be implemented where ever Muslim true believers in Islam gain the upper hand.
The idea, (in my humble observation of what is going on,) by sane Western leaders is to prevent the countries the British carved out of southwest Asia from forming a Caliphate; as with the Shiite Iranians, ruled by the most fanatical in Islam ... and armed with nukes.
To claim that Sharia wouldn't be implemented by a devout Muslim majority in Palestine (Hamas is already using sharia.) or all the Arabian peninsula, as it is in SA or Iraq is a lie.
I don't think even Muslims deserve the delusions of their religion, history and traditions and law, let alone should Muslims be allowed to implement such a tyranny on others or their own children.
As to what you lecture I might believe, think, or do concerning things outside this discussion is really irrelevant to my specific comments.
Make your best guess, or stay tuned; but, your long winded rebuttal falls way short of proving that the 72 virgins given to such a Muslim true believer in Islam, as I speculated, wouldn't ALL be chimpanzees .

The whole claim that the TFF is directly linked to the Brand Israel campaign or was worked on its behalf is factually FALSE.

The CJN is misquoted by omission and juxtaposition. If you read both these original CJN articles:
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15198&Itemid=86
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17634&Itemid=86

it is clear that both the Israeli mayor and the Israeli consul speak about the Brand Israel campaign as totally separate event from the TFF, and the Israeli government involvement is limited to the other things - not the TFF schedule, programming or agenda.

A third link clarifies:
http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15272&Itemid=86

that the TFF is from the start a totally separate independent event and the Israeli government campaign is merely using it as a 'piggy back ride'.

If you want to criticize the Govt. of Israel for doing so, fine. Claiming the whole idea is an Israeli government ploy is factually false, and has been denied by everyone involved on both sides.

Not a single claim raised here is actually supported by the article text.

People who cry wolf about politicization are dishonest about their motives. The vile anti-Israeli protest is a much more flagrant and cynical politicization of the festival, than the movies ever were.

Most movies carry no propaganda message what so ever (some of them predate recent events by years), and those who deal with the conflict are well far from the Israeli govt. position.

The only side that intentionally and constantly keeps bringing politics into this is the anti-Israeli crowd, which brings up Israeli-Palestinian conflict TO ANY EVENT Israel is a part of, no matter how unrelated. This is done in hope to tarnish Israel's image, and raise awareness of the Palestinian narrative.

Most people protesing reject the mere mentioning of Tel Aviv that does not end with "evil murderers" as a political statement. If that is not indicative of flagrant political bias on THEIR part, then I don't know what is.

A large part of the films are as a-political as one gets. The rest are demonstrably left wing of the govt. position. To claim they are somehow government policy is a sham.

To try and claim that mentioning Israel outside of the context of the conflict is a political statement, is dishonest and cynical.

To misquote and misrepresent quotes by Israeli officials to tarnish the festival, is dishonest and cynical.

Finally, there's quite enough to discuss on this topic even if we limit ourselves to this event. Funny how fast those people who are against politicization are the first to offer lengthy one-sided narratives of the background of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Please tell me what's wrong with "re-branding" Israel? Great films, beautiful country.

It shouldn't be about politics.

You know where they also have great films and a beautiful country? Iran. Just because they have a questionable leadership doesn't mean it's wrong to brand the country and its culture.

The people and the filmmakers have nothing to do with the decisions of the politicians.

Oh, and if people REALLY wanna talk about apartheid, then there's this - Where has a people and a religion been forced to leave the country? Well, historically that has happened many places but recently it has happended in just one place. The Jewish people in Gaza.

When modern Israel tells muslims and arabs to leave then we can talk about apartheid.

Dark says:
'It comes pretty clear that somebody's paying them and they're lying about it.'

------------------------------------------------------------
REALLY? Where can I collect?
I had thought I was merely having fun.

_________________________________________________________________
Dark says:
'Just after the WTC was demolished, Donald Rumsfeld announced an internet program where Pentagon hirees would go from site to site "informing" the public about how wicked Islamics are. I came across several sites with these irresponsible and dishonest plants.'
-----------------------------------------------
Would that be untrue with regards to our morals, government, law, and Constitution?
How about providing proof of this, Dark? The 'Nazi' smart guy from RAytheon you sipped JO with!?
Even if a 'dirty tricks' squad existed, does it render any criticism of Islam, suicide bombers and fanatics in Islam invalid, post 9/11?
In fact, post 9/11, all I ever saw from the government web sites, then in Republican, conservative hands, was glowing pandering and support for Islam and it's culture here and abroad.

I find it ammusing that so many people scream about the jewish right to their homeland Israel/Palestine yet have no problems building homes here in the US on the land of Native Americans. What hypocrasy.

Ebert: We're all wrong. It says something about surrounding evil and forcing it to surrender.

It stings, doesnt it? But Peter Hawthorn is right to question the logic of Roger's 'alibi' of ignorance (although Peter didnt read my post on the exact same thing... *sigh*... no one reads my posts....well, except II(HW)!).

But ya know, it could be worse Roger: instead of public embarrassment how about mass indifference?

Ebert: Correction. It surrounds "hate."

Fawthrop! (I like that name) What do you MEAN, "where did I get that crap?" Haven't you ever read Revelation???? If you're lucky you get to be one of the 600,000 who bow up and down in front of God for all eternity. Never mind the "city of gold," you won't even find a decent strip club there. JESUS you vestigial-Christians don't read the Bible any more than you did that 1,000 page medical bill monstrosity.

Ah! Here's RDS, the Ebert blog agent provocateur, trying to cover himself. Let's just peel his lid off.

[On Rumsfeld's internet paid propaganda program:]

REALLY? Where can I collect? I had thought I was merely having fun.

---Uuuuuuuh huh. That's what they all say. I did a resume for an ex-Navy Seal named Dave who applied for it, then changed his mind when he realized what the job entailed. Smart man. Did you need a resume too? Or were you recruited from bellowing on a sidewalk how the Islamics are all out to get us? Why is obsessing over the atrocities of a few crazed religious nuts out of a billion-plus perfectly nice people such a fun subject for you? Also a big fan of rotten.com, are you?

_________________________________________________________________
Donald Rumsfeld announced an internet program where Pentagon hirees would go from site to site "informing" the public about how wicked Islamics are. I came across several sites with these irresponsible and dishonest plants.'
-----------------------------------------------
Would that be untrue with regards to our morals, government, law, and Constitution?

---Would which be untrue? That you're not implicitly admitting that you're an agent provocateur paid to smear Islamics and think your morals, government, law and Constitution are all for it? Is that what Bill Bennett told you?

How about providing proof of this, Dark? The 'Nazi' smart guy from Raytheon you sipped JO with!?

Espresso, Cap'n. I didn't say he was a Nazi, why did you? We did agree that George Lincoln Rockwell was a clown. Friend o' yours, is he? Kindred soul? Or does he just need disappeared? Check the Tucson Cable Access Studio. Last I noticed he's hanging around there. They booted him from the cafe across the street.

Even if a 'dirty tricks' squad existed,

---Oy vey, such a cagey person. Is that what you call your job, a "dirty tricks squad?" That's not what Don Rumsfeld called it when he announced the program, Sept '01, you'll remember, national news. Did you apply then or were you recruited?

does it render any criticism of Islam, suicide bombers and fanatics in Islam invalid, post 9/11?

---If you had any authentic criticism I'd have noticed by now. You're merely reciting the same litany over and over again, posting after posting. It renders you wearisomely obsessive.

In fact, post 9/11, all I ever saw from the government web sites, then in Republican, conservative hands, was glowing pandering and support for Islam and it's culture here and abroad.

---Now then. Sorry to have to employ the "L" word, but you're lying. You have no Eusebian skills. Don't bother bringing up some quote or another from some "government web site" to pretend to prove your point. Your questions and answers are contrived according to an agenda. Now maybe this agenda is beamed directly into your head from Planet Nibiru, or maybe from more earthly sources; in either case, it's a repetitious tattoo of standardized propaganda about how evil Islam is, and I tend to observe by now that it's the latter.

You're not here to reason with anybody, Cap'n. You're here with a fake smear agenda. But I don't think the public is real willing to fall for it, no matter what the plans for riling them up against Iran may yet be. In'sh Allah.

Nir from Israel, perhaps unintentionally but who knows, put a needed focus to what is behind so much conflict, and the reason conflict stretches to centuries: the desire for vengeance. "For I, my friends, and all the people who watched the movie with us, got a great kick and had a lot of fun in his movie, particularly as it gives vent to that basic want for vengence and for some ass kicking of Nazis by Jews." Does the skillfully executed INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS serve to bring closure, or does it cause more desire for kicking ass in a just cause? And what cause is more just than making the murderers of one's family pay for what they have done?

Will it ever end?

For what it's worth, when I wrote this:

"If Israeli kids and Palestinian kids were both attending the same schools, playing in the same parks, shopping in the same stores, hanging out, it wouldn't be possible for either side to attack the other without attacking themselves... I see that as the only real solution, myself; make it so the gun you point at your enemy is literally the same one you point at yourself."

I was thinking to myself -

Not everyone is insane. Some Palestinians and some Israelis are more than capable of getting along; it's fanatics on either side who make everyone look bad, while making them suffer too.

Now imagine if the kids were all mixed together, in schools and playgrounds and hanging out after class, and that some of their parents are SANE. They don't want to fight - they just want to go to work, raise their families, live peacefully with their neighbours, etc.

Now imagine a bomb goes off on a school bus.

If you're a fanatic, no; you're not going to care. But not every parent is willing to sacrifice their kid. Not every parent is going to accept it, without complaint. Or the factors which contributed to it. And grief can be a powerful thing - it can unite people. Sorrow and pain is universal; no one owns it. And if a group of Palestinian Moms and Dads got together with a group of Jewish Moms and Dads, and were to channel their collective grief... you see where I'm going with this?

As that's what happened in Ireland. It wasn't solved by politicians.

It was solved by mothers on both sides. Parents who'd had enough.

And until that day arrives for Israel and Palestine, hope is a dream so far off in the distance, is it any wonder so few can see it, myself included.

I feel sorry for their kids, I really do. What a raw deal the fates handed you. Stuck, trapped, surrounded by hate and forced to eat it - 'cause your parents are just that selfish and f*cked-up. And instead of rising to meet your potential in life, it's more often than not stillborn because of it.

As all they're doing is breeding copies of themselves. And how sad is that, eh?

(1) Sirotnikov wrote: "Mark Hughes - You're dishonest on several accuonts. First, because there have been precedents of Palestinian attempts at re-branding or simply promoting their narrative in films and no one peeped."

Take a reading-comprehension class. I stated there's no Palestinian state government -- prove to me there is, and I'll give you a cookie. I stated that there hadn't been a political PR campaign by any such Palestinian government since no such state exists. Again, a chance to earn a free cookie for you here. I noted that if there WERE a political PR campaign by a Palestinian government, and it was coordinated with a festival, that it would be the same situation.

So, for an entire box of cookies, show me a Palestinian state, show me a Palestinian government PR campaign at re-branding said state, and -- most importantly -- show me that this PR campaign was done in conjunction with a film festival that joined into the political PR campaign. You can pick the type of cookies if you win. Which you won't. Because you're absolutely wrong. Again.

(2) Sirotnikov wrote: "Second, because there is absolutely no shred of evidence of the Israeli government's involvement in the TFF. The CJN is misquoted by omission and juxtaposition."

Wrong. Again. What part of the previous link did you not understand, exactly? Where the Israeli government representative said A YEAR AGO that the Brand Israel campaign would, in fact, culminate with the Toronto International Film Festival.

And, uh, in your OWN LINK there, did you happen to just not read this except:

"With the help of the Canada-Israel Cultural Foundation, Israel will also have a “significant presence” at this year’s TIFF, he said."

You seem enthralled by the single mention in another of your linked articles of this quote:

"Though the launch of Brand Israel was not specifically timed to coincide with the TIFF,"

That's true, since what it says is that the Brand Israel campaign was not TIMED so that it coincided with the festival. That's all it means, and it does NOT mean that the festival was not picked as one outlet for the campaign and that the festival did not join into the already existing Brand Israel campaign -- which is what happened.

I already provided the link to the quote from the Israeli official who explicitly noted -- as did one of your links there -- that the campaign would culminate in this year's film festival. That's fact, whether you like it or not, and your links include information backing that up and NO information refuting it whatsoever. Because it's true.

(3) Sirotnikov wrote: "it is clear that both the Israeli mayor and the Israeli consul speak about the Brand Israel campaign as totally separate event from the TFF, and the Israeli government involvement is limited to the bus poster campaign - not the TFF schedule or programming."

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again. No such thing is "clear" because it's entirely untrue. Demonstrably so, in fact, since (a) we can see from the article that it is actually not true, and (b) last year it was made clear that the Brand Israel campaign WOULD culminate at the film festival, an assertion that pre-dated the festival's own announcements of film inclusions and City-to-City participation by at LEAST six or more months.

(4) Sirotnikov wrote: "If you want to criticize the Govt. of Israel for doing so, fine. Claiming the whole idea is an Israeli government ploy is factually false, and has been denied by everyone involved on both sides."

No, it's factually demonstrable. You're wrong. The denials on "both sides" (meaning both sides of the same side) are false as well. Demonstrably so.

(5) Sirotnikov wrote: "Third - you are dishonest about your motives. The vile anti-Israeli protest set up is a much more flagrant and cynical politicization of the festival than the movies ever were. Most movies carry no propaganda message what so ever (some of them predate recent events by years), and those who do deal with the conflict are well far from the Israeli govt. position."

Well someone really just doesn't understand the issue clearly, so let's try this again: The Films Are Not Being Protested. The Films' Content Isn't The Issue. The inclusion of the festival in an Israeli government political PR campaign is flagrant and cynical politicization of the festival, and denying that fact is vile, flagrant and cynical manipulation of the truth by those determined to apologize for Israel at all costs -- including the cost of the truth. Meaning you are dishonest about your motives. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly made my motives perfectly clear, explained where my motives would apply to similar sorts of manipulation by other governments, and have explained clearly my own position regarding Israel and Palestine in the broader sense. I'm not guilty of dishonesty about my motives at all.

(6) Sirotnikov wrote: "The only side that intentionally and constantly keeps bringing politics into this is the anti-Israeli crowd, which brings up Israeli-Palestinian conflict into ANY event that has to do with Israel, no matter how unrelated it is, in hope to tarnish Israel's image, and raise awareness of the Palestinian narrative."

Wrong. Again.

That's paranoid rambling to assert that any and all members of the "anti-Israel crowd" always have ulterior motives that they disguise, that any and everything related to Israel is subjected to a big conspiracy ("the Arabs did it!" or "the pro-Arabs did it!") and promoting the notion that Israel is under constant maniacal threat from devious Israel-haters lurking at every event or forum where Israel gets mentioned.

Politics got injected into this situation when Israel launched a big political PR campaign and decided it would culminate in the film festival, and then set out to get the film festival to oblige, which they did. Attacking anyone who now points out this fact and blaming them for the politicization -- it's not Israel's fault for their actions, it's everyone else's fault who takes exception to those actions -- is just absurd and dishonest.

(7) Sirotnikov wrote: " You and most people protesting, reject the mere mentioning of Tel Aviv that does not end with "evil murderers" as a political statement.
If that is not indicative of flagrant political bias on YOUR part, then I don't know what is."

Haha, well since that isn't on my part, it's on YOUR part for inventing the claim out of whole cloth, it's kind of hard to take it seriously. How about if I say this: You and most people opposing the protest reject any criticism of Israel that doesn't end with "but the evil Arabs made them do it," and if that's not indicative of flagrant political bias on YOUR part, I don't know what is." How's that? Absurd, huh? Yes, it is.

Some other things you might not know "what is": (a) things I actually say, as opposed to things you make up; (b) things that are true; (c) evidence that doesn't support your claim, but actually debunks it; and so on.

Making up some extremely absurd statement, attributing it to your opponent in a debate, and then saying "well, pfft, that's a pretty blatantly bad thing to say" is remarkably illogical and illegitimate, is the point.

(8) Sirotnikov wrote: " A large part of the films are as a-political as one gets. The rest are demonstrably left wing of the govt. position. To claim they are somehow government policy is a sham."

What. Part. Of. It's. Not. About. The. Films. Do. You. Not. Understand? To claim a protest against a film festival's participation in a blatant political PR campaign is a protest against the films' content is a sham. Wrong again, Sirotnikov.

(9) Sirotnikov wrote: " To try and claim that mentioning Israel outside of the context of the conflict is a political statement, is even a bigger sham."

To rely solely on strawman arguments and gross mischaracterizing of the other side, and to dramatically misunderstand pretty much ever aspect of the real issue involved, is an even bigger sham. You just make up wild, inaccurate statements and attribute them to the protesters or to folks here, that's all you're doing here.

(10) Sirotnikov wrote: " To misquote and misrepresent quotes by Israeli officials to tarnish the festival, is a sham."

The only one misquoting anyone here is you -- misquoting me, misquoting the protesters, and misquoting the articles you link to. You also misrepresent the information, ignore a bunch of it, and make up things out of whole cloth. In short, a sham.

(11) Sirotnikov wrote: "And finally, there's quite enough to discuss even if we limit ourselves to this event. Funny how fast a biased yet lengthy review of Israeli-Palestinian politics and history is mentioned by people who claim to be 'against politicization'."

Wow. Why don't you try a little test here. Scroll up to the top of the discussion and look at the first posts. Go ahead, we'll wait...

Okay, what's the third one do? Yeah... kind dives right into a bunch of political talk and assertions about Israeli-Palestinian politics and history, doesn't it? And keep reading on down there... yeah, kept comin' up from the supporters of the festival and Israel, didn't it? Yeah, it did.

And when the protest was initially launched, from the very start what were the immediate claims from those defending the festival and the PR campaign? Yeah, dived head-first right into the ol' "they hate Jews" accusations and claims that it's all a big overarching desire to destroy the state of Israel and so on.

Now, wanna try to make another ridiculous complaint directed at me or anyone else regarding the development of discussion and debate over politics and history here? I hope not, 'cause it ain't gonna go too well for you if you do.

Because, ya know, you're wrong. Again.

Guy: "The human rights situation in Saudi Arabia is appalling by any reasonable standard."

I know what you mean. I initially wanted to go to the Middle East in 2003, right when war broke out, because I wanted to see the truth of the situation and not just rely on news. Well, that, and I had always wanted to ride a camel across a desert.

Saudi Arabia is indeed a very strange place. I disagree with so much of the life over there, and yet I keep going back for more. I am completely against the dealth penalty (although if someone murdered my own family, I could see myself being a hypocrite, but I hope I wouldn't be.) My hobby is singing karaoke (there is none there.) I love going to the movies (there are no theaters over there.) I love a glass of red wine now and then (it is illegal.) I am not a Muslim (A Christian is allowed one Bible in his suitcase, to be read only at home), I do not go to the mosque to pray 5 times a day. They shut everything down during those prayer times, and that has been the worst part of living there for me. There are 3 prayers that come at night and seem to come in succession. You are told to leave the coffee shop. Then, you're usually the only guy left, alone, until everyone comes back. It's annoying and can be lonely. On Friday particularly- the holy day- the religion police come by in their van and storm up to the coffee shop tables outside yelling at everyone to go to the mosque. I sit there, a bit rattled, but they see that I am "white" and reading a Charles Dickens novel, and have never spoken to me.
You are of course not allowed to speak to Saudi women. I have seen a few flirt with me with their eyes, or look back at me and giggle, but you just don't entertain the thought of actual conversation unless you enjoy high risk. To pick up a woman, a Saudi man will glance around for police. If the coast is clear, he opens his cell phone and if the woman likes him, she will open hers. Bluetooth allows transmittal of the other's number so that they can later call in private. I have also seen men holding up big white signs in their car with their number written in bold magic marker. This too is illegal.
From my perspective, there is fun to be had. I wouldn't go there if I felt that my life was just suffering, and I often feel that Saudis are having a better time than I am, because they are so connected to their families. I meet good friends with good humor, watch dvds, have time to read classics, enjoy a bit of the culture, and can even find "Amy's Kitchen" organic frozen entrees from California (always makes me feel like I'm home.)
I have not witnessed bloodshed. I have not lived the life there through a woman's eyes. I always know that I'll be leaving in several months- what it is like to live there permanently, I wouldn't know. How I find comfort in a place that is against so many things I stand for, I don't really know.

Ebert: Up to certain point, I could probably live anywhere if I could sit in a cafe and read Dickens.

(1) RDS wrote: "To claim that Sharia wouldn't be implemented by a devout Muslim majority in Palestine (Hamas is already using sharia.) or all the Arabian peninsula, as it is in SA or Iraq is a lie."

No, to claim you know the future is a lie, RDS. You can say you think my belief is wrong, or that it wouldn't play out that way, but to call anything you disagree with "a lie" is silly. Just for comparison's sake, is it a lie that Hussein's Iraq existed? Because, holy crap, there was an Arab state full of Muslims that didn't enact national sharia law. Moreover, what about the fact that sharia law isn't in effect in the OTHER areas of Palestinian control? Sort of gives lie to your whole "lie" assertion.

(2) RDS wrote: "The world is, of course, full of all kinds of things besides the evils of Islam and sharia law -- sharia law that comes sooner of later necessarily along with Islam."

Wrong. See above.

As for your claims about what your comments pertained to, well then that's what you should've written instead of a lot of extreme hyperbole about Islam and all Muslims. I don't believe ANY religion is a healthy form of governance, and yes that includes Islam. But your comments went beyond that sort of thing, and I think you know it. There was far more subtext to your remarks, so please spare me the pretense that there wasn't.

(3) RDS wrote: "I don't think even Muslims deserve the delusions of their religion, history and traditions and law, let alone should Muslims be allowed to implement such a tyranny on others or their own children."

Even if it means direct interference and use of force from other nations? Just asking, and taking note of your other remark about "sane Western leaders" wanting to "prevent the countries the British carved out of southwest Asia from forming a Caliphate" etc. Since, you know, there's some clear subtext in your comments suggesting you agree with that desire by Western leaders, and that desire by Western leaders pretty well takes the form of, you know, overthrowing governments and installing our preferred leadership and warfare and such. Except, of course, when we go in to save these poor ignorant Arabs from themselves and install governments that become overtly religious, or when we prop up religious governments (like Saudi Arabia), and so on.

(4) RDS wrote: "your long winded rebuttal falls way short of "

Oh, seriously, don't even try to make snarky remarks about long-winded rebuttals, RDS. Do you read your own posts here or anywhere else, for goodness' sake? And when you stop holding seminar-style lectures on your own views and beliefs, you can come back and complain to me about my writing style, okay? I don't complain about that in other posters because I am aware I write a lot. So take off your hypocrisy hat, thanks.

(5) RDS wrote: "Would that be untrue with regards to our morals, government, law, and Constitution? How about providing proof of this, Dark? The 'Nazi' smart guy from RAytheon you sipped JO with!?"

Rumors about this have been common for the last several years. Here in D.C., it has been a consistent subject of discussion and debate in political circles, including media like Politico and even among politicians and others on Capitol Hill (where I worked for several years, and encountered the discussions personally). The circumstantial evidence that this went on is strong, and is regularly on display in activist and alternative media outlets around D.C.

Lawsuits against even local police secretly posting such things online -- such as at Indymedia sites -- have taken place and demonstrated officers engaged in just such activities..

(6) RDS wrote: "Even if a 'dirty tricks' squad existed, does it render any criticism of Islam, suicide bombers and fanatics in Islam invalid, post 9/11?"

Where did Tom say it renders any criticisms of Islam etc invalid? Can you please provide the quote where he said that?

His post didn't even IMPLY it. He made comments critical of BOTH sides, not just those who seem focused on attacking and criticizing Muslims -- as you've done, just for example, and even joked about asking where you can get paid for it since you thought you were "just having fun" -- but also folks who seem focused on obsessive criticism of Jews as well. You just apparently are fine with him criticizing the extremist attacks on Jews, but you dislike his criticizing of extremist attacks against Muslims. Why is that, exactly?

(7) RDS wrote: "In fact, post 9/11, all I ever saw from the government web sites, then in Republican, conservative hands, was glowing pandering and support for Islam and it's culture here and abroad."

Then you live in a fantasy world. Period. To make such an assertion, that all you ever saw was "glowing pandering and support for Islam and its culture here and abroad" by the GOP government is so absurd it's unbelievable that you'd have the guts to even post the claim. I can't even take you seriously in this discussion after such a remark.

(1) Michael wrote: "It shouldn't be about politics.
You know where they also have great films and a beautiful country? Iran. Just because they have a questionable leadership doesn't mean it's wrong to brand the country and its culture.
The people and the filmmakers have nothing to do with the decisions of the politicians."

It shouldn't be about politics? But it became about politics when Israel's Brand Israel campaign became part of the film festival.

If Iran launches a Brand Iran PR campaign and gets a film festival to participate in that political campaign, I'll oppose that as well.

It's not about "the people and the filmmakers" here, it's about the festival and Israeli RP campaign together. That point's been made so often that I don't quite get how you missed it.

(2) Michael wrote: "Oh, and if people REALLY wanna talk about apartheid, then there's this - Where has a people and a religion been forced to leave the country? Well, historically that has happened many places but recently it has happended in just one place. The Jewish people in Gaza."

It happened in Palestine, when Palestinians were driven from their homes and land, which were taken and formed into part of Israel. For example. Which is the point.

The Jewish settlers in Gaza made colonial settlements in violation of international law, Michael. They were removed by the Israeli government so that Gaza could be shut off and isolated from the rest of the world and attacked relentlessly. You must've missed those parts of the equation. To look at Israel and Palestine, and see the only example of a people being forced out as the example of Jews in Gaza, is rather blind.

But anyway, you said "apartheid" and seem to miss something...

(3) Michael wrote: "When modern Israel tells muslims and arabs to leave then we can talk about apartheid."

Then we can talk about it now, since Israel kicked out Palestinians through ethnic cleansing to take their land.

But, back to what you missed about apartheid -- uh, you realize in South Africa that Apartheid didn't kick the black population out of South Africa, right? It just kept control over where they went and when they could go there. Since Israel actually expelled most of the Palestinian population from the land and now maintains them in encampments and occupied territories, that's actually a bit BEYOND what Apartheid did in South Africa. As, for example, Nelson Mandela will tell you.

Ebert: Nobody objects to the films. They are definitely not all pro-Israel or pro-Tel Aviv. I don't believe you have looked at the reason for the controversy.

I'm having trouble seeing the reason for the controversy. From the revised intro you posted, it seems to stem from this being some part of an organized campaign to "re-brand" Israel. And to this I say...so what?

Here's what the Toronto Declaration says:

We do not protest the individual Israeli filmmakers included in City to City, nor do we in any way suggest that Israeli films should be unwelcome at TIFF. However, especially in the wake of this year’s brutal assault on Gaza, 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.

It's clear the petitioners are unwelcome to any possibility of Israel being shown in an other than harshly critical light. Any concerted action to undermine the view of Israel as a "brutal" "apartheid regime" is therefore objectionable. But what's wrong with the opposing viewpoint being presented? What gave the petitioners the monopoly on the truth?

Do they fear we're in danger of one "truth" being substituted for another? If so, too bad; we can handle multiple truths. We're big boys and girls. We should be capable of coming to our own conclusion, no matter which way propaganda (from either side) tries to sway us.

As for the TIFF allowing itself to be "used" in this way, again I say...so what? If the films are legitimate and worthwhile--and your first version of this blog seems to indicate they are--what difference does it make? Are you elevating WHY something is being said over WHAT is being said? Statement X is a good idea unless entity Y wants you to believe it?

Ebert: I believe the problem is that this is not a good time to participate in the re-branding of a nation that has recently been responsible for so many deaths in Gaza.

RDS wrote: "In fact, post 9/11, all I ever saw from the government web sites, then in Republican, conservative hands, was glowing pandering and support for Islam and it's culture here and abroad."

I come back to your remark here, because it is simply so outrageous. I won't call it demonstrably false, since you said "all I EVER SAW" -- but the notion that the GOP on government Web sites only posted glowing, pandering, supportive comments about Islam and its culture here and abroad is demonstrably false. And I'll give you an examples to immediately disprove that notion.

http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051130-2.html

And here's a news article discussing the spread of the use of such terminology about Islam throughout the Bush administration:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/world/americas/11iht-letter.html

Since you claimed you only saw "glowing, pandering and support[ive]" remarks etc from the government after 9/11, would you call the terms "Islamic terrorism" and "Islamic Caliphate" and "totalitarian Islamic empire" glowing, pandering and supportive remarks about Islam? Now, I'm not going to get into an argument with you about whether or not you AGREE with those terms and that depiction etc. The point is whether or not the use of such terminology on government sites and texts constitutes the sort of only-positive references to Islam you claim are the only sort you saw after 9/11.

The only use of the term "Islam" or "Islamic" is the term "totalitarian Islamic empire" in that speech by Bush on the White House site, and the only use of the term "Muslim" is a reference to Iraq helping the U.S. "gain a partner in the cause of peace and moderation in the Muslim world". Take those two together, and not only is the reference to Islam suggestive of a sense of totalitarianism inherent in an Islamic empire, but there is also a clear implication about the need for Iraq to become a counter to lack of moderation and peace in the Muslim world. The implications about the notion of extremism and violence (as opposed to moderation and peace) are glaring here, and are of course entirely what Bush was precisely trying to get across.

Thinking that this reflects only "glowing, positive, or support[ive]" remarks about Islam would be a pretty irrational thing to claim. So, having seen it, do you now admit that if you only previously saw positive things about Islam from the GOP, you weren't looking very closely at what was being said? Or was your comment hyperbolic?

I haven't even gotten into the obvious point that the use of nice terminology about Muslims and Islam was in stark contrast to what the administration was ACTUALLY doing, and how the attempt to present an image of "tolerance" regarding Islam was nothing but a dog-and-pony show to provide plausible deniability (although it was hardly actually plausible to anyone who can see or hear or read) as cover for the direct targeting of Muslims and Arabs. If you want to debate that as well, then may I suggest we first settle the question of whether the grass is actually blue and the sky is green?

And if a group of Palestinian Moms and Dads got together with a group of Jewish Moms and Dads, and were to channel their collective grief... you see where I'm going with this?

Tthere is an active organization of Israelis within Israel that protest and demonstrate against their country's aggressiveness in Palestine. However, their marches are neither broadcast nor covered in mainstream media, apparently.

And, as is so often the case, the discussion about or against Israel/Palestine turns into a discussion against Saudi Arabia.

And, as usual, it's the same "us vs. them" rhetoric, juxtaposing the sanitized versions of the best of "us" against the exaggerated versions of the worst of "them."

The interesting thing, though, is that perhaps the three most vilified countries on the planet are Saudi Arabia, Israel, and the United States. Perhaps it's bigotry. Perhaps it's a statement the inability of each country to live up to the lofty ideals they might claim about themselves. Or, perhaps it's because these are the regions that many people long to visit, as lands of some sort of promise. Who knows. In any case, it's interesting.

Omer M

"And if a group of Palestinian Moms and Dads got together with a group of Jewish Moms and Dads, and were to channel their collective grief... you see where I'm going with this?"

There is such a group, of parents who have lost children to the conflict. "Parents Circle": http://www.theparentscircle.com/

There's also a group of former combatants from both sides, called "Combatants for Peace": http://www.combatantsforpeace.org

Ebert: I believe the problem is that this is not a good time to participate in the re-branding of a nation that has recently been responsible for so many deaths in Gaza.
Which the Hamas precipitated by firing rockets at civilian targets in Israel.

Really, will there ever be a "good time" for re-branding a nation in the eyes of critics who insist on seeing it as evil?

Ebert: What was the death toll on each side?

Mark says:
'Just for comparison's sake, is it a lie that Hussein's Iraq existed? Because, holy crap, there was an Arab state full of Muslims that didn't enact national sharia law.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You make my point for me.

Ebert: What was the death toll on each side?

This is why Palestinian militants will continue to be quite content hiding amongst citizens and using them as human shields. As long as folks like Ebert continue to try and label the aggressor using body counts, the militants have justification-- they're downright incentivized, really-- to provoke Israelis and then hop behind a Palestinian family of four for the retaliation.

I'm surprised that you would follow up a meaningful (if not pretty) conversation on the Middle East conflict with such a flippant and superficial response.

Ebert: So...what was the body count?

Ebert wrote: "Up to certain point, I could probably live anywhere if I could sit in a cafe and read Dickens."

After reading that, I checked my library's online catalogue to see what they had by way of Charles Dicken's movies - et voila!

"Oliver Twist" (1997)

Richard Dreyfuss - Fagin
Elijah Wood - The Artful Dodger
David O'Hara - Bill Sikes
Alex Trench - Oliver Twist
Antoine Byrne - Nancy

I've never seen this version before, and HEY! It's got David O'Hara! I just saw him recently in "The Matchmaker" - so I went over grabbed it and it's with me now; fingers crossed he does a good Sikes!

Note: I see now it's an ABC TV/Disney co-production. I'll just lower my standards and be Zen with it, whatever its faults and failings. :)

P.S. it's ironic subject matter, at any rate - given my recent posts.

Thank God I know how Oliver Twist ends, or I'd never be able to enjoy the suckage of child labor for being too angry about it!

Smile.

I haven't seen Roman Polanski's version of Oliver Twist, either. Ooo, you gave it 3.5 stars!

"True evil in the film is seen in Bill Sykes, who comes to such a ghoulish and appropriate end, and also in the society which surrounds and permits all of the characters. Dickens grew up in a world of workhouses for children, child prostitution, "charity" institutions run with cruelty and greed, schools that taught nothing and were run for profit, and people who preyed on children, starved and mistreated them, and praised themselves for their benevolence. Those who haven't read Dickens since school, or never, may confuse him with the kindly storyteller of popular image; his works are filled with such fury that he must create a Mr. Brownlow from time to time simply to return calm to the story." - Roger Ebert

Yeah, those Muslims... no one can match their evil deeds, eh?

Certainly not the British; cough.

P.S. I'll let you know Roger, if this TV version sucks, chuckle!

Dear Roger;

The 1997 ABC TV/Disney version of "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens, sucked.

Richard Dreyfuss as Fagin was wearing an over-the-top fake nose with a pronounced hook to it. Elijah Wood cannot do a convincing Cockney accent to save his life - or this version of the Artful Dodger. And you could see David O'Hara straining against the limitations of the Disney-fied script, clearly wanting to sink his teeth deeper into Bill Sikes and constantly having to pull himself back; making for an uneven performance.

And as for Alex Trench as Oliver Twist - you could sell chocolates with that face and while he wasn't bad, he wasn't great either. Mind you that's Disney for you, eh? Sugar galore. Note: Antoine Byrne played Nancy but again and as with Bill, it was too cleaned-up.

A far superior effort is the dark and gritty BBC/PBS Masterpiece 2008 adaptation of Oliver Twist featuring an all British cast and with arguably the best Will Sikes to date as played by the vastly underrated Tom Hardy. Actually, Tom Hardy and Sophie Okonedo (she plays Nancy) were truly inspired casting. They'd worked together before back in 2006 on a British film called "Scenes of a Sexual Nature" ie: it's a series of vignettes.

Made for only £260K ($400K) but starring Ewan McGregor, amongst others, the film went into production just six weeks after the script was finished and was shot over a period of eighteen days entirely on location Hampstead Heath, North London. Theirs was the best bit - and while they don't show it in this clip, if you watch it, I will tell you what happens after he drops his pants. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xo4ZXzwn8ls

Now compare that "Tom Hardy" to this one - after he gained weight and packed on some serious muscle to play "Bronson"...

"Bronson is a 2009 British biographical crime film directed by Nicolas Winding Refn and starring Tom Hardy. The film follows the life of notorious prisoner Michael Gordon Peterson, who was re-named Charles Bronson by his fight promoter. Born into a respectable middle class family, Peterson would nevertheless become one of the country's most dangerous criminals, and is known for having spent almost his entire life in solitary confinement."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3XzmR6Pmmgw&feature=related

It's brilliant but also controversial - Michael Gordon Peterson is still alive and some felt it glamorized a violent criminal. Whereas I think it's more like through the looking glass and down the rabbit the hole, myself.

Anyhoo, keep your eyes peeled for this English actor. He's as brave as Christian Bale.

Atom Egoyan wrote in the Globe and Mail,

Toronto — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009 03:07AM EDT

More than a week ago, the Toronto Declaration: No Celebration of Occupation was drafted, a concerted attempt to decry TIFF's choice of Tel Aviv as its spotlight city.

I have watched with dismay as many of my colleagues have signed this open letter. The reputation of the Toronto International Film Festival has been targeted. As a long-time supporter of such an important event, I find this sad and regrettable.

For the first time in my experience of attending the festival, a tone of partisanship has been cast on a cherished oasis of civility and artistic free expression. The organizers of the Toronto declaration rashly proclaimed that this interference came from an outside government - the State of Israel - but this serious charge has never been substantiated.

A film festival is an event that should stir controversy and discussion. This should come from the films and the filmmakers themselves. Questions of national history and identity must be presented and discussed. Are the signatories of this declaration aware of the numerous Arab and Palestinian voices programmed in this year's edition?

What I resent about the Toronto declaration is that for the first time in the history of this magnificent event, an agenda was imposed before the festival even began.

The programmers were insultingly charged with shady collusion and political naivety. In fact, they were just doing their job.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/tiff-tactics-sad-regrettable/article1290806/

Ebert: A reasoned opinion.

Ebert asks, "What was the death toll on each side [during the 2008-2009 conflict]?"

Asking for a death toll for this small window of time isn't really informative of anything. The Gaza conflict began in 2001 and continues to this day. Comparing the death tolls of Islamic terrorists to American citizens, but limiting the time frame to events taking place between September 12, 2001 and October 12, 2001 would present an equally skewed version of history, but if Ebert insists ...

On the Palestinian side, about 600 militants and 600 civilians died. There are shades of gray here since terrorists often have civilian day jobs. Furthermore, building bombs around hospitals and schools puts civilians in danger unnecessarily. Also, Palestinian sources count fatal accidents occurring while building bombs as "Palestinian casualties" for which Israel is responsible.

Something like 10 Israelis were killed. Unlike Palestinians, Israel does not deliberately put its civilians in harms way and then boast about how many lives were lost. As was said above, the Palestinians have cynically mastered the calculus of death: Israeli deaths help their cause and Palestinian deaths help their cause. Israel cannot treat its citizens like pawns in this way and, unfortunately for both sides, cannot help but play into this numbers game.

Marie Haws,

I'm glad that mentioning Charles Dickens got you checking into films based on his books. I got into him based on Roger's recommendation. After "David Copperfield" became my favorite book of all time, I got my mom to read it. She hadn't read a novel in the longest time, and said she didn't think she'd ever read anything better than that.

"Great Expectations" by David Lean is in Roger's Great Movies collection. I bought that on dvd along with Lean's "Oliver Twist." It's been sitting on my shelf for a couple of years now. Don't know what I'm waiting for. Roger, if not too busy, could you let us know if you admire Lean's "Oliver Twist" or not.

Ebert: You bet I do.

I've been a life long reader of your journal entries and film reviews, i'm a young man and I have to say you're writing has very much helped me in processes of critical thinking and to be able to relate to things via written word. I have to say I'm a bit disappointed in your bias towards what's happening with what you called a 'boycott', though it does not state that anywhere and seems misrepresented.

All the people you named in support of it were obviously of the jewish persuasion, while the people you said opposing it happen to belong to a more important persuasion, their simply human beings acting in defense of what they believe is right. They have no incentive in doing this, and stating it as a relative evil compared to all the other problems going on in the US and else where only serves as a mute point, an effort to detract from the immorality that has occurred in that region. It is not a one sided debate ofcourse, but your journal entry casts an apathetic light on a very important cause.

I do not know if I will ever again read your words which are like beloved old friends who seem endlessly interesting.

Mark, if your best attempt at rejecting Palestinian PR campaigns is the ludicrous claim "they do not have a government", then you're even more dishonest than I thought, since you clearly spend enough time learning the issue to know otherwise. Especially now that they enjoy 2 governments as opposed to the 1 they had until 2007.

>> Politics got injected into this situation when Israel launched a big political PR campaign and decided it would culminate in the film festival, and then set out to get the film festival to oblige, which they did. Attacking anyone who now points out this fact ...

It is not a fact, but a conception built upon a shred of evidence. The quote from 2008 your relying on certainly does not give the necessary evidence without a huge string of assumptions.

All we know is that the consul was aware of Israel's presence in the festival (something that is part of his job description) and made plans for his campaign events to coincide (also part of his job).

A film festival on this scale takes at least a year ahead to prepare, and involves hundreds of organizations, including the likes of the Canada-Israel Cultural Foundation (which the consul mentioned), to my understanding a canadian NGO that "Builds cultural bridge between Israel and Canada by bringing Israeli performers & artists to Canada."

Obviously the Israeli consul there would become aware of plans to include Israel in the festival, as part of his regular job promoting culture!

This is eons away from proof that he, or any Israeli exerted pressure on the film festival organizers, or had anything to do with the original decision.

In fact, the organizers vehemently deny it:

>>As the programmer of City To City, I was attracted to Tel Aviv as our inaugural city because the films being made there explore and critique the city from many different perspectives. Furthermore, the City to City series was conceived and curated entirely independently. There was no pressure from any outside source. Contrary to rumours or mistaken media reports, this focus is a product only of TIFF’s programming decisions. We value that independence and would never compromise it.

The attribution to the Brand Israel campaign was because it coincides with the consulate's campaign - a campaign that is over a year long! It would have lots of stuff coinciding with it. The consul's mentioning of it is an incredibly weak argument for your position, especially in light of the denials by TFF staff.

Your accusation that I'm somehow misrepresenting the motive of the protesters is also amusing. It is perfectly clear from dozens of quotes about the protestors' motive in this very discussion: the fact that it comes "in the same year as the Gaza campaign".

This point has been made again and again, and was the main justification for protest before the accusations of Israeli involvement in this were dug up.To see it, you merely have to read the posts of your fellows in this very discussion.

>> Ebert: I believe the problem is that this is not a good time to participate in the re-branding of a nation that has recently been responsible for so many deaths in Gaza.

The opposite is true.

First it is clear that the film festival and its Israeli spotlight was planned long before the Gaza campaign, and from the start has had nothing to do with it.

Second, especially now it is important to show there is complexity to the conflict, that it is NOT all black and white as some would have people think.

Third, because I don't think it is relevant to simplify complex issues such as the for the sake of protesting a movie festival.

Plenty of errors have been made on the Israeli side, but had the same criteria applied to Israel had been applied to NATO, you'd see hundreds of generals and state leaders jailed over the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, the difficult fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of which had terrible civilian-to-combatant kill ratios, and had *much* less precautions taken by the attacking forces.

You are incredibly naive for an otherwise intelligent man. The Palestinians never wanted a state existing in peace side-by-side with the state of Israel. They could have had that on multiple occasions. They were offered that on multiple occasions. They rejected that on every occasion. Simply put, the Palestinians demand their state in place of Israel, not next to it. Want proof? Name one Palestinian, even among the so-called "moderates," who recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland or the right of the Jews to their own state. That's right, there aren't any, not even one. How can Israel make "peace" with people dedicated to their destruction? Maybe such renown Mid-East scholars like Danny Glover and Viggo Mortensen can enlighten us.

As for your criticism of Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, the Israelis man security checkpoints and constructed a fence to prevent the peace-loving Palestinians from blowing up their citizens in restaurants, buses and shopping malls. What's so objectionable about Jews trying to prevent their self-declared enemies from murdering them?

Roger, I read your question "what was the body count" in Israel's most recent defensive action in Gaza, taken as a response to thousands of Palestinian rockets fired into Jewish population centers. What other nation except Israel would have tolerated such an assault on its civilians over a period of years?

Since Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza years ago, not one Palestinian there would have died if they had not subjected the population of southern Israel to relentless rocket fire. Moreover, in World War II, generally considered a "just" war against Nazism and Japanese aggression, we killed many more of them than they of us. The Allies bombed German cities indiscriminately from the air, in contrast to Israel's attempts in Gaza, using a ground assault at greater risk to Israeli troops, to surgically strike at the Hamas terrorists using their own people as shields.

Critics like yourself do not say whether Israel should have increased its quota of cadavers or if it must reduce the Palestinian quota to achieve the reasonable proportion of blood that will soothe the peculiar itch for parity that afflicts you. Nor do you specify the morally permissible number of casualties to end the rain of rockets that for years has been constantly falling on the heads of Israeli civilians.

Israel is the only country expected to behave differently and, in fact, it does; I know of no other nation that announces where and when it will drop its bombs, thus enabling civilians to evacuate the territory. Of course, in this it behaves asymmetrically, because the Hamas terrorists, forever eager to cause the greatest damage possible, never announce when or where they will launch their rockets against Israel's civilian population.

In turn, Israel has not the slightest interest in causing casualties. All it wants is to stop Hamas attacks the only way it can: by eliminating the terrorists and destroying their arsenals. There's no other way to deal with them. Hamas is not a political organization with which agreements can be reached, but a fanatical gang intent on wiping Israel off the map. To achieve this objective, its members are even willing to turn their own children into human bombs, just to kill the hated Jews.

Here's another very important asymmetry. The Jews build underground shelters in all houses near the border; they close the schools and hide the children at the least sign of danger; they treat the death of a single soldier as a national tragedy; they do everything possible to rescue their prisoners, and protect the civilian population from the consequences of war. In contrast, the authorities in Gaza, drunk with violence, fire their machine guns irresponsibly into the air to express joy or grief (causing numerous injuries), do not hesitate to install their headquarters or hide their guns in schools, mosques or hospitals, use human shields to protect themselves, turn to suicidal terrorists and reward the families of such "martyrs" with money.

Those who want to wipe Israel off the map and don’t care who knows it, have hit upon a method of pursuing their goal with impunity. First, they harass and try to demoralize Israel with relentless, low-tech terror, such as rocket and mortar fire or suicide bombs aimed at civilians, taking advantage of the small geographic scale of the regional battlefield. Second, when Israel finally asserts itself, they erupt in wounded ululations of humanitarian concerns, causing the international community to force an armistice on Israel before it could defend itself.

Imagine muggers calling 911 to stop their victims from harming them when the mugging doesn’t go their way. Next, picture the police responding and doing exactly as the muggers demand. Voila, French President Sarkozy and the rest of the Euro-gang flock to the region, ravens disguised as doves, the terminally naive and terminally cynical harbingers of faux-peace from angelic Europe, home continent of both World Wars, to lecture Jewish victims of 60 years of relentless Arab/Islamic aggression about proportionality and humanitarian concerns.

Hamas and supporters are demonstrating the art of the brazen assault, a cultural specialty, whose sheer viciousness is matched by its impertinence. Step one: We hit you as hard as we can. Step two: If you dare hit us back as hard as you can, we’ll have the law on you.

Really? If you don’t want to be hit by Israel, it’s easy. Don’t hit it. The many people and places Israel never bombed or invaded have one thing in common: They never bombed or invaded Israel. The phenomenon is consistent enough to be reduced to a simple formula. For a good night’s uninterrupted sleep, avoid firing rockets into Israel the previous day.

Free Speech, but only if you agree with Leftist Ideologies.

If one side attacks the other, it's "atrocity, genocide, murder, tyranny!"

But when the home team does, naturally it's "Revolution! Freedom! Libertad!"

Meanwhile, I'm sure Belafonte and Glover will be happy to plug right on with playing apologist to the actions of Fidel Castro's regime just as soon as this all blows over, great humanists that they are.

Ebert: It never works when you try to make vast generalizations like this, and discredits your argument.

Body counts aside, it all boils down to "Now Look What You Made Me Do," if I may so grossly generalize. "How Do We Break This Endless Bucket Brigade Of Misery?" never seems to be asked.

@ Peter Fawthrop - and totally off-topic, I know. :)

You betcha I've seen David Lean's "Oliver Twist" - my library has that one too, along with many others (when they're on the shelves of course, as Dickens is pretty popular with the locals.)

As best I can remember, I've seen various film adaptations of -

Nicholas Nickleby
David Copperfield
Great Expectations
A Christmas Carol
A Tale of Two Cities

And/including BBC or ITV versions of; some were 6 part mini-series:

Bleak House
Little Dorrit
Our Mutual Friend
The Mystery of Edwin Drood
The Old Curiosity Shop
Martin Chuzzlewit

It's hard to know at times though, whether something was a film or not. Companies often team-up with the BBC to underwrite production costs, and then it gets released in theaters in the UK - only to cross the pond and appear on PBS Masterpiece or A&E etc.

Note: this past Spring, over the course of 4 months, PBS aired a bunch of Charles Dickens stories! That's where I saw the latest adaptation of Oliver Twist, and 3 other productions...

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/dickens/index.html

I do know that I saw Nicholas Nickleby in a theater; I remember "The Squeers" were played by Jim Broadbent and Juliet Stevenson - they were brilliant and horrifying both at the same time.

"What happens when the light first pierces the dark dampness in which we have waited? We are slapped and cut loose. If we are lucky, someone is there to catch us and persuade us that we are safe. But are we safe? What happens if, too early, we lose a parent? That party on whom we rely for only everything? Why, we are cut loose again and we wonder, even dread whose hands will catch us now? There once lived a man named Nicholas Nickleby..."

So few words yet containing so much, eh? I find some productions have a tendency to add a tad too much sugar to Dickens; I suppose to better make the underlying bleakness in his tales, easier to bear. But I prefer the dark as without it the lighter parts shine dimmer.

I suppose it comes down to "what" you actually liked about Dickens? Sheer skill as a writer aside, I like the extent to which the truth could be seen glimmering darkly underneath the veneer of society; allowing them to be seen adding greater poignancy to his stories. As strip away what's long since inspired colorful Cockney parodies of it and imo, Dickens told the truth about the city and country in which he lived. And it wasn't a flattering portrait.

He just went about that in a way that made you want to hear about it, eh?

Moreover, what makes any story great if not caring about its main characters? And how is that achieved if not through empathy? Ergo, the darker it is, the more I want goodness to triumph in the end and when it does - well, I dare say that's why almost 200 years later, Charles Dickens is still such an immensely satisfying read.

Dark! What do you MEAN "if you're lucky you get to be one of the 600,000 who get to bow up and down for eternity." That's in Revelation? Funny, this article states that there is that exact number of Iraqi Christians alone who have been displaced since 2003.

http://www.mnnonline.org/article/13152

Perhaps one of those subway saviors handed you a pamphlet called "The Further Adventures of Revelations: How to Avoid Satan's Pet Horned Toad Who Will Eat a Majority of Christians and Other Advice from the Caring Clinic of Turbo-Metro Spirituals"

Be careful with those subway saviors, Tom. But if a kid is selling M&M's, you have my permission to buy a bag.

Mark Hughes@ I Guess I should make a response to your response to my post. But I really don't want to start a huge debate. I guess we just see things very different. And that's ok.

You wrote: "If Iran launches a Brand Iran PR campaign and gets a film festival to participate in that political campaign, I'll oppose that as well."

-Well, if they included all kinds of films that were both pro and con their decisions and politics (like that would happen...), then there's no way that it should be opposed. I just don't agree with that.

You wrote: "They were removed by the Israeli government so that Gaza could be shut off and isolated from the rest of the world and attacked relentlessly."

-That's a bit paranoid now, isn't it? Are you actually telling me that jewish families are be welcome in Gaza? Jews have been living in Gaza for many years. Also before 1948. They should be able to live there without having to fear attacks. Just like palestinian arabs should be able to live in Israel. Oh, wait. They are. I don't think the 4 palestinian israeli citizens I know from my trips to Israel every october are the only 4 palestinians living peacefully in Israel. But of course I could be wrong(!)

You wrote: "But, back to what you missed about apartheid -- uh, you realize in South Africa that Apartheid didn't kick the black population out of South Africa, right? It just kept control over where they went and when they could go there."

-And Israeli does that within the borders of Israel? No. The Gaza/West Bank/Israel situation is totally different. We can certainly agree that many things are being done wrong, but it has nothing to do with the palestinians living IN Israel. Unless you actually consider Israel to be Palestine...

And don't start about palestinian/arab rights in Israel. You don't have to go there. Everbody knows that there are problems. Many people are working on it, and on several occations the Supreme Court of Israel has overruled local anti-arab initiatives. There's (too much) racisme on both sides but that is not government apartheid.

The true "brand" of Israel is that of a vibrant country, full of people who desire peace but are faced with an enemy who wants to wipe them off the map; a country whose medical, technological, and scientific achievements have benefited the entire world; a country where all religions are allowed to practice and all religious shrines and holy places are respected; a country where homosexuals do not have to worry about being killed; a country whose religion celebrates life; a country whose army bends over backward to have as few civilian deaths as possible, which is hard to do when the enemy hides in civilian populations and uses civilians as shields; a country that has endured attacks without response for months, hoping for a respite; a country whose people have been returning to their ancient homeland for over a century, building a country in
the wilderness; a country whose largest city, Tel Aviv, was built in this wilderness on land occupied by no-one; a country where Jesus was born and lived as a Jew his whole life, long before there was a Muslim religion.

The "brand" that the world believes is the one that the Palestinians have been pushing on you for years - a "brand" that shows Israelis as hateful, demonic people. The Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler, and his Nazi beliefs are still perpetuated in the Palestinian people, and indeed, in most of the Muslim world. This view of Jews is repeated over and over in mosques in all parts of the Muslim world, in horrible cartoons, and in outright lies told to the media, which believes them without skepticism. in calling for a boycott, the people who signed the declaration are allying themselves with these lies and distortions and lining up behind the Muslim "brand" of Israel. I am disappointed to see that you seem to be joining them. Yes, the Palestinians do deserve a homeland, but not in all of Israel. If they were willing to stop their terrorism and work for peace, there would be peace now. Why does no-one ever hold them accountable for their actions and words? You decry the "political" use of the festival, but the media has been used by the Palestinian political disinformation machine for years. Time to turn it around.

There is nothing wrong with trying to change the view one has of Israel, or its "brand" (I hate that term). Showing films from Tel Aviv that might show Israel in a good light is just telling the truth for once.

Ebert: What was the death toll on each side?

Reductive. How did the Japanese death toll in World War II compare to the American one? Would you make a "more justified" ruling on that score?

Hamas provokes and then when Israel responds militarily, Hamas waves the bloody shirt to claim moral superiority. But doesn't Hamas bear ANY responsibility for the provocation?

When will this madness end? As an outsider of the Israel and Palestine conflict, I often found myself in the midst of it vicariously. Is it going to be the Hundred Years War of our time?

The amount of energy that the entire world has been engaging in this dispute has been enormous. The money, the bombs, and the "good will" have been misused and instead killed thousands. And other communities have now been divided as Israelis and Palestinians are looking for supporters. What good could this moral and academic debate about Israeli and Palestinian actions bring about - other than cynicism and hatred? Why should other societies be polluted like this.

Meanwhile, there are the same kinds of violence and desparations that occur throughout the world like the wars in Africa or global warming disasters. Yet they seem to be the least of our wordly priorities. The situation in MidEast is a perfect example of why human beings not only fail to live up to their potentials.

A pox on all their houses and their supporters at TIFF. (I'll still watch their movies though.)

Dana - If Israel was really just full of people who desired peace all of the settlements past the 1967 boundaries would be dismantled tomorrow. There certainly wouldn't be ongoing building. It's impossible to interpret these settlements as anything other than an aggressive land grab by a group of people far more concerned with expanding their domain than achieving peace.

If Hamas managed to hide itself within an Israeli population, so that several hundred Jewish people had to be sacrificed to prevent terrorists from lobbing missiles that almost never manage to kill anyone, would it be justified? Or is it only justified to inadvertantly kill Palestinians in an attempt to stop the terrorists? If there is a serial killer living in your neighborhood would we be justified in killing you to stop them, even if it prevented dozens of deaths at the killer's hands?

The protesters are engaging in a rather annoying bout of faketivism: attempting to politicize an apolitical cultural event. Whatever you think about the situation in the Middle East, it's best to let artists be artists.

Mike Thicke could not be more wrong in his posting that Israeli "settlements" are the impediment to "peace."

1. Before 1967, Israel did not occupy one inch of the West Bank or Gaza, and there was not one Arab nation which spoke of peace with Israel. Not one. So how, all of a sudden, can the "settlements" be the impediment to peace?

2. In 1967, Israel captured the West Bank and Gaza in a defensive war waged mainly by Egypt, Jordan and Syria with help from Iraq, Lebanon and some smaller Arab countries. They failed in their goal to annihilate Israel. What other nation in world history has been forced to return land gained under such circumstances, especially when all evidence indicates that this land would be used to launch more attacks against Israel (see 3, below)?

3. In 2005, Israel withdrew from every inch of the Gaza Strip. It was an ideal opportunity for the Palestinians to show the world that they wanted peace in a state side-by-side with Israel. They could have built hospitals, roads, schools and factories with the fortune in international aid they were receiving. They did none of this. Instead, they elected the Hamas terror group to lead them and launched thousands of rockets into towns in southern Israel against Israel's civilian population - for the sole purpose of killing Jews. Why has Israel any reason not to expect that the Palestinians will use a withdrawal from the West Bank to subject the heartland of their tiny country to further rocket fire?

4. Furthermore, in exchange for withdrawing from Gaza, the Bush administration assured Israel that the major West Bank "settlement" blocs, which are actually thriving towns that are home to hundreds of thousands of Israelis, would remain a part of Israel in any final deal. The Palestinians would be given a comparable area of land from inside Israel proper. Why was that unacceptable to the Palestinians?

5. Because the Palestinians consider all of Israel "illegal settlements." Want proof? Take a look at any Palestinian textbook or atlas. The entire map of Israel is labeled "Palestine." Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beersheba, Ashkelon, and of course, Jerusalem, are all part of Palestine. According to the Palestinians, the Jewish state of Israel does not exist.

6. The unfortunate, irrefutable fact is that not one Palestinian acknowledges the Jewish right to a homeland in the state of Israel. In their quest for "peace," the Palestinians adamantly demand that Israel either give them land or agree to absorb millions of Palestinians into what's left of their country, turning Israel, the only Jewish state, into the 23rd Islamic one.

Marie says:
'.. it's fanatics on either side who make everyone look bad, while making them suffer too...'

-------------------------

I don't mean to pick on your posts which are usually fun, well informed, and good hearted, but 'fanaticism on both sides'?
It's not an equivalency thing between Western and Islamic 'fanaticism'; the British, for example do not share the same law system as the Islamicly based sharia. Fanatics usually try to be 'lawful' or at least 'just' in some interpretation of a person as Hitler, law system or cult.
English common laws are not based wholly on the words of Jesus (who essentially was Mohammed's opposite anyway) or even Christianity. 'Fairness' is usually the operative word in our law and religion --so the fanatics in the West are fewer and further between, since they usually latch onto some whacked out cult leader -- like, for example, Farrakhan's idea of Islam in prison.
Roman law wasn't based on Christianity, nor did Christianity supplant the Roman law codes upon the arrival of Constantine -- nor is Napoleonic law based solely upon church doctrine.
The 'fanatic's' idea of the 'good' is often a combination of what is lawful and what is righteous -- but most would agree the 'fanatic' does intend to do 'good' as he understands it; those concerned with doing 'good' usually focus intensely upon either a cult leader, law or religion -- In Islam there is no real division between the three.
Sharia law first and foremost reflects the directives and example of the prophet Mohammed -- None of this jury of one's peers stuff. Some think Islam a vast improvement of the previous ME system of justice, but is really so 'good' compared to that of the West?
Rape in Islam as you must know, being a feminist, must be witnessed by 4 other Muslim men -- assuming they too weren't involved in the crime; few women can prove rape in Islam's sharia --and may, in fact, wind up punished as well.
So, when you make such assertions of 'equivalency' between Islamic and Western travesties of justice by fanatics I have a difficulty in knowing what you mean.
The 'fanatics' on both sides, and whoever it is who decides the parameters of such fanaticism are not equivalent to each. Those participants of 9/11 slashing throats crashing plane loads of people or those participants protesting abortion clinics thinking the fetus is a person deserving of legal rights are equivalent in their 'fanaticism'?
Neither has a common basis for their behavior between Western systems of culture and Islamic ones.
Strong emotion or perhaps a Asperger's syndrome mentality could inspire those behaviors you call 'fanaticism' in Islam or the West -- where an individual takes it upon him or herself to do 'good'. But sometimes such people simply do good.
The blanket term fanatic doesn't even fit someone who 'unapologetically believes in the Koran', since that could mean anything in the realm of Islam, and result in litigation as much as it could result violence; but, not likely inclusive of Western notions of justice -- Why are Islamic 'do gooders' so often in the news -- is it really unfair?
I assume then, in the context of this discussion of Palestine and Israel, you mean by fanatics; those who put on suicide vests (to do good for Islam and obtain heaven with perhaps some sexual perks) and blow them selves up upon a school bus or wedding ceremony, and equivalently you mean 'fanatics' as those on 'Israel's' side who follow orders; and, direct a drone's hellfire missile upon orders from a military authority, upon a car load of identified Islamic militants. Both the same to you? Both fanatics? I don't see the picture.
What looks 'bad' and is bad can have some nuance of meaning too.
Besides being a crime of murder, it LOOKS bad that a 'fanatic' abortion protester shoots a OBYN doctor -- looks bad for all Christians
It IS bad that the MURDER of the artist, Theo Van Gogh, terrifies all society to suppress material Islamics find offensive; so, that they might maintain an oppression of women, let alone, impose their beliefs, and cult of Mohammed upon others without opposition.

To me, a fanatic is someone who is so focused on a thing, they can't see beyond it and in failing to, the bigger picture. All they see is what's immediately in front of them - be it religion, English football, a movie star, etc.

And when you're THAT focused, your emotions follow along as everything gets invested and channeled into it (in this case, Religion.)

There are people on either side, who can't see the bigger picture. And consequently they're the ones making life miserable for everyone else because they'd rather fight over stuff than share it.

This community project was started in 2005 - Feed The Hungry: Vancouver

http://muslim-jewish.ca/feedthehungry/

Muslims and Jews got together to help people out and in focusing beyond their own concerns, saw a BIGGER picture.

"If you can, please join us from 1:30 to 2pm after the lunch as we form a circle to share brief prayers together and share our personal reflections on our experiences of the day, as well as a bit of who we are and where we came from. It's a beautiful way to connect and get to know each other – each one of us a reflection of God's beauty on this earth." - pray and connect

The world may be messed-up dude, but not everywhere.

Dark says;
'---If you had any authentic criticism I'd have noticed by now.'

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, you haven't noticed that tens of thousands of serious men and women have contributed support to the Theory of Evolution; and, you have the audacity to reject it based upon the most convoluted reasoning that lacks the logic and scrutiny of these many brilliant and professional people's efforts.
You conclude that HIV isn't a virus that can be sexually transmitted since 'it's dead' even though the fact a large number of people test positive for those very 'dead' HIV particles after such behavior. You neglect that set of observations conforms to the hypothesis that a virus 'even if dead' is indeed behind it.
So, what can we expect of your analytical skills? Not much I'm afraid.
Nor do you seem to notice that my posts are connected to what others here say, as with the one you refer to.
This does not bode well for your efforts in detective work, Dark, though you and your chimp Kafka could undertake a comedy routine as in 'Get Smart' or a foil for Nancy Drew as her bumbling sleuth competitor, for our amusment.
Talk to the shoe, Dark; my man undercover.
hmm. that might be insulting were you a Muslim --

(1) Sirotnikov wrote: "Mark, if your best attempt at rejecting Palestinian PR campaigns is the ludicrous claim 'they do not have a government', then you're even more dishonest than I thought, since you clearly spend enough time learning the issue to know otherwise. Especially now that they enjoy 2 governments as opposed to the 1 they had until 2007."

Do you just think that everybody else reading this has reading comprehension problems and won't see how pretty shamelessly ridiculous you're being here? Talk about dishonesty, you've repeatedly relied on just snipping off parts of what I said -- you leave off my repeated context of "NATION-STATE government".

The Palestinians do not have a national government, because they don't have a nation, and they didn't run a government PR campaign to re-brand their non-existent nation-state through a film festival. Since you overtly snipped off parts of my comments to post your intentional misrepresentations, it's not a case of you really not understanding the truth here.

(2) Sirotnikov wrote: "It is not a fact, but a conception built upon a shred of evidence. The quote from 2008 your relying on certainly does not give the necessary evidence without a huge string of assumptions."

Are you going to just repeat your same false claims?

Your own link included the notation about how the Brand Israel campaign was specifically working with CIC to help lobby the festival. The link I provided had the clear information about the Brand Israel campaign planning -- a year in advance -- to lead into the festival, and they worked with local groups to organize and get the film festival into the campaign. It worked. It's not a huge string of assumptions, it's blatant admissions and evidence.

(3) Sirotnikov wrote: "All we know is that the consul was aware of Israel's presence in the festival (something that is part of his job description) and made plans for his campaign events to coincide (also part of his job)."

Wrong again. Last year -- a year prior to the film festival -- Israel was launching the Brand Israel campaign and explicitly said the PR campaign would lead into the festival, before the festival made their final selections.

Sirotnikov wrote: "A film festival on this scale takes at least a year ahead to prepare, and involves hundreds of organizations, including the likes of the Canada-Israel Cultural Foundation (which the consul mentioned), to my understanding a canadian NGO that 'Builds cultural bridge between Israel and Canada by bringing Israeli performers & artists to Canada.' "

The CIC worked with the Brand Israel campaign to get the festival onboard with the PR campaign. That's what happened -- which is why they said it. The Brand Israel campaign went on for a year beforehand, launched in Toronto and amid public comments that the festival would be the culmination of the Brand Israel PR campaign. CIC worked with Brand Israel regarding the festival -- do you think the festival managed to remain entirely unaware of this for an entire year? Of course not.

Brand Israel made it known that they were working to get the PR campaign to culminate at the film festival. Brand Israel stated they worked with CIC. The festival ended up showcasing precisely the films wanted by Brand Israel, highlighting Israeli filmmakers precisely as Brand Israel and CIC wanted.

You can keep trying to cover and put out false claims for them all you want, but the truth is the truth and everybody can see it.

Sirotnikov wrote: "Obviously the Israeli consul there would become aware of plans to include Israel in the festival, as part of his regular job promoting culture! This is eons away from proof that he, or any Israeli exerted pressure on the film festival organizers, or had anything to do with the original decision."

If you're just going to keep repeating false claims, I'll keep repeating the truth -- the Brand Israel campaign launched one year ago, and stated a year ago that the plan was for the PR campaign to culminate at the film festival. This was a big deal in Toronto, it was all over the news, and the festival didn't simply remain in the dark about Brand Israel and CIC's plans. For you or anyone else to try to push the notion that none of that proves the festival's involvement in the Brand Israel campaign is beyond absurd. You keep calling me "dishonest", but it's pretty clear at this point where the dishonesty is coming from.

Sirotnikov wrote: "In fact, the organizers vehemently deny it"

Yes, please go on repeating this same claim no matter how often the truth is already exposed. We all know they deny it, Sirotnikov. We heard you the first several times. We just know it's not TRUE.

Sirotnikov wrote: "The attribution to the Brand Israel campaign was because it coincides with the consulate's campaign - a campaign that is over a year long! It would have lots of stuff coinciding with it. The consul's mentioning of it is an incredibly weak argument for your position, especially in light of the denials by TFF staff."

How on Earth can you possibly be blind about all of this, and so grossly misunderstanding what it all means? You are claiming that the launch of a big PR campaign in Toronto and public claims that it would culminate at the festival, and working with CIC to promote it at the festival, all covered in the news for a year, and ending with the festival a year later announcing the City-to-City would showcase exactly what the PR campaign wanted, is just a big coincidence and that we should ignore the public proclamations about it a year in advance. It's absurd.

Sirotnikov wrote: "Your accusation that I'm somehow misrepresenting the motive of the protesters is also amusing. It is perfectly clear from dozens of quotes about the protestors' motive in this very discussion: the fact that it comes "in the same year as the Gaza campaign". This point has been made again and again, and was the main justification for protest before the accusations of Israeli involvement in this were dug up.To see it, you merely have to read the posts of your fellows in this very discussion."

Oh, please, just stop. Seriously, this is ridiculous. It's just hyperbolic attempts at character assassination and anything-to-silence-critics. You've done nothing here but keep denying obvious facts and making demonstrably false assertions over and over.

Everybody reading here at this point can see clearly what really happened, and why the protests are being held. You're wrong, and it's obvious you're wrong.

Sirotnikov wrote: "Plenty of errors have been made on the Israeli side, but had the same criteria applied to Israel had been applied to NATO, you'd see hundreds of generals and state leaders jailed over the bombing campaign in Yugoslavia, the difficult fight in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of which had terrible civilian-to-combatant kill ratios, and had *much* less precautions taken by the attacking forces."

Uh, yeah, but lots of us oppose what went on in those examples as well, and that's why there are calls for prosecutions in those cases as well. That has nothing to do with it, and is just another case of trying to act like we can't oppose or criticize or take any actions against anything we don't like since hey, there's other bad stuff somewhere else in the world.

It's an invalid and illogical argument meant to distract from the main point, nothing more and nothing less. But you picked a pretty bad example, since most of those opposing this instance would oppose a similar situation in those instances as well. And since your comment just repeats the same illogical argument already refuted here previously.

The Brand Israel government PR campaign was a complex, big event, with lots of money and planning involved, certainly more so than the festival. It was subject to intense planning and coordination, it launched last year amid assertions that it would culminate at the festival, amid claims that CIC would help, and this was all over the news. The festival was aware of it, CIC and Brand Israel were involved, and the festival did what the PR campaign planned would happen.

Let's take an absurd example and just assume the festival heard about the PR campaign, spoke with CIC and Brand Israel, heard the publicity about the PR campaign over the last year, and heard the public assertions that the PR campaign would culminate at the festival -- you think the festival just quietly said to themselves, "We aren't going to participate in the PR campaign, let's just do exactly what they want and what they told everybody would happen, and we won't in any way be part of or assisting the PR campaign. Sure, we are fully aware of everything that's going on and that's been happening for the past year, and we've been lobbied about it, and we're in the city where the whole PR campaign is happening, but just because we knew about it and we were said to be the culmination of it and we were lobbied to do it and now we're doing exactly what they said would happen, that doesn't mean we are in any way responsible for being part of it."

That would be the LEAST possible that would have to have happened. And it's glaringly obvious that it assumes the festival is run by deaf, blind, horribly naïve people committed to doing something everybody expected and saw as part of the PR campaign but that they would just think nobody would make any connection. It's absurd, but even under such outlandish conditions the fact would remain that they chose to proceed without any comment or debunking or anything else to even attempt at all to distance the festival from the PR campaign and its claims.

Michael wrote: "Well, if they included all kinds of films that were both pro and con their decisions and politics (like that would happen...), then there's no way that it should be opposed. I just don't agree with that."

Why is it so hard to understand that the point is about protesting a film festival's decision to PARTICIPATE in such a PR campaign? This isn't about the government in question or the types of films etc -- it's about whether or not an artistic venue should make itself a collaborating partner in advancing a nation's political PR campaign to improve its image. Israel, Iran, whomever, the point is not whether or not you agree with the films or the PR campaign, it's about the festival becoming a political tool of a PR campaign. This isn't rocket science, it shouldn't be this hard to understand.

Michael wrote: "That's a bit paranoid now, isn't it? Are you actually telling me that jewish families are be welcome in Gaza? Jews have been living in Gaza for many years. Also before 1948. They should be able to live there without having to fear attacks. Just like palestinian arabs should be able to live in Israel. Oh, wait. They are. I don't think the 4 palestinian israeli citizens I know from my trips to Israel every october are the only 4 palestinians living peacefully in Israel. But of course I could be wrong(!)"

Uh, NO, it's not paranoid -- the Jews left Gaza because the Israeli government came in and FORCED them out. They were "evacuated" by armed troops. This was in the news, for cripes' sake, how on Earth did you miss this?

Moreover, go look at the stats I posted previously about attacks etc -- the majority of attacks and injuries and deaths are not among Jews being attacked by Palestinians, it's Palestinians being attacked by Israelis, including Israeli settlers in places like Gaza. Look at the stats -- conservative ones, remember, and including from ISRAELI sources -- for the number of Palestinians attacked and injured or killed by these settlers.

There are indeed Arab citizens in Israel -- and I already addressed the actual facts about their treatment, plus they aren't forcing their way in and occupying Israel, nor are they the governing and military entity in control. The comparison is outlandish. The laws that treat them differently, the discrimination they face, and so on are well-documented and I provided some of it already. Read it, or just ignore it as you have so far, but it remains true regardless.

Michael wrote: "And Israeli does that within the borders of Israel? No. The Gaza/West Bank/Israel situation is totally different. We can certainly agree that many things are being done wrong, but it has nothing to do with the palestinians living IN Israel. Unless you actually consider Israel to be Palestine..."

Are you BLIND? Do you even bother to read or understand the context in which I responded? For goodness' sake, I'm not going to even have a conversation with you if you so grossly misunderstand and/or misrepresent what's been said. Go back and read your own remark and what my comment there says in response to YOUR comment. If you still can't grasp or are going to just ignore the context and the point, then there's no reason to even try to talk to you about any of this. This is simply absurd.

And YES it has everything to do with Palestinians living IN Israel as well as IN occupied territories -- I demonstrated examples of treatment of Arabs IN Israel, and the fact is that whether Israel grants citizenship or not to other Arabs in lands occupied and controlled by Israel, Israel is responsible for its treatment of those people. Period. Come back if and when you're going to discuss this honestly and with better understanding of what's been said.

Michael wrote: "And don't start about palestinian/arab rights in Israel. You don't have to go there. Everbody knows that there are problems. Many people are working on it, and on several occations the Supreme Court of Israel has overruled local anti-arab initiatives. There's (too much) racisme on both sides but that is not government apartheid."

No, Michael, I WILL start about their rights in Israel. Firstly, actually, YOU "started" on that point, remember? Yeah.

Second, it's part of the point, and I DO have to "go there" when you and others keep ignoring and denying what's happening to the Arabs there, And I've shown already the courts and laws and government etc all continuing to discriminate and allow discrimination.

Finally, just tossing out comments about there being too much racism "on both sides" ignores the fact that ONE side happens to be the one with the power, government, military, money, and land. It's not an equal equation, but you and others like to attempt to mitigate the impact of Israeli racism and oppression by suggesting it's just a case of equal parties engaged in equal hatred and violence -- the facts clearly demonstrate otherwise.

Dana wrote: " The Mufti of Jerusalem was an ally of Hitler, and his Nazi beliefs are still perpetuated in the Palestinian people, and indeed, in most of the Muslim world."

And others could argue that the existence of a national-socialist state based on race, engaging in violent occupation of lands taken from an oppressed minority, is more akin to "Nazi beliefs". Yet when such a comparison is made, of course, Israel's defenders scream that it's unfair, that it's anti-Semitic, and so on. All the while, you want free reign to compare anyone and everyone else who opposes Israeli brutality to "Nazis" and "Hitler".

Andy wrote: " Reductive. How did the Japanese death toll in World War II compare to the American one? Would you make a 'more justified' ruling on that score?"

And yet, isn't the Holocaust regularly used as a point of reference regarding Israel's justification for wanting a racially-based state, for being under constant siege, for their treatment of Palestinians, and so on?

And in fact, yes, the death toll IS relevant when you have a comparison between an occupying power that has killed a vastly larger number of people -- overwhelmingly civilians -- and a group of people with organizations fighting the occupying power and causing far smaller numbers of injuries, deaths, and damage. If comparisons don't matter, then you could claim that one Arab shooting one Israeli justifies Israel killing all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. Would that be legitimate? Would you claim it's "reductive" to note the gross disparity?

Eli wrote: " The protesters are engaging in a rather annoying bout of faketivism: attempting to politicize an apolitical cultural event. Whatever you think about the situation in the Middle East, it's best to let artists be artists."

And thus you oppose the politicization of the festival and artists by the Brand Israel campaign and the festival's decision to participate in the politicized PR campaign, right?

Steve David wrote: " Really? If you don’t want to be hit by Israel, it’s easy. Don’t hit it."

Or be on land it wants. Or be near anyone they plan to blow up.

I tried to post this previously, but my machine may have timed out, I'm not sure but it didn't post so I'll try it again to see if it works this time:

Mr. Ebert asked about the death toll in Gaza (further down in this post you'll find a list of the names, ages, and other information about the dead Palestinians from the Gaza attack, Mr. Ebert - I have not located anywhere listing the Israeli names, yet, but if I find it I'll post that as well), in response to several folks claiming Hamas provoked the attack on Gaza. Which is a false claim -- I won't call it a lie, since the people making the claim here may not know the actual facts, which though demonstrates why people need to actually be informed before making strong assertions of fact and placing blame etc regarding massacres of civilians.

The cease fire was violated by Israel repeatedly prior to Hamas launching rockets into Israel in retaliation. The catalyst for the rocket fire was an Israeli attack into Gaza in November 2008. That attack, and those which followed, were ignored by the mainstream press -- and by apologists for Israel -- yet when Hamas finally responded to repeated Israeli, that was claimed as a "provocation" that "caused" Israel to massacre Palestinian civilians. Until that Israeli strike in November, the cease-fire (mediated by Egypt) that started in June held.

Those claiming that civilian deaths caused by Israel's massive strike into Gaza is due to militants "hiding" among civilians ignore a few important points. Namely, how absurd and dishonest it is to take a place like Gaza that is completely shut off from the rest of the world, the population trapped inside and not allowed to leave by the Israeli military, and claim that the people surrounded and imprisoned there are somehow fair game since they are trapped among Hamas' fighters.

Secondly, Israel explicitly used rocket attacks against military installations in Israeli-controlled territories as an excuse to strike into Lebanon, despite the fact those military areas were built within and around civilian centers.

Third, if you want to talk about using Palestinian civilians as "human shields", what exactly do you think of Israeli soldiers using Palestinians as human shields, like this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxFvT-3-M9E&feature=related

...or THIS image from the Daily Mail, showing Israeli soldiers with a Palestinian child tied on the hood of their jeep as a human shield:

http://palestinethinktank.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/humanshield11.jpg

...or this (notice it's from B'Tselem, an ISRAELI organization):

http://www.btselem.org/english/human_shields/20060720_human_shields_in_beit_hanun.asp

...or this from ISRAELI SOLDIERS who went public to complain that Palestinians were used as human shields in Gaza by IDF troops:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8149464.stm

...or some video and news footage of IDF troops using Palestinians as human shields:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXq57XK2L0A&feature=related

Care to continue trying to argue about "human shields"?

Fourth, even if we took at face-value Israel's claim that Hamas is just using civilian "human shields" in Gaza, that does not -- under international law or the most basic concepts of civilized human behavior -- grant Israel freedom from responsibility for indiscriminately bombing and destroying Gaza and killing the overwhelmingly civilian population.

Israel and its apologists have long relied on claims that the militants are responsible for any civilian deaths due to being among them, and that civilians are themselves partly to blame for not getting rid of the fighters in their midst. Applying that same logic, then, every citizen of Israel who served in the armed forces -- which is a majority -- would be "legitimate targets" for having served in the military and for allowing the military to set up bases and live among them and so on. And it also assumes the civilians in Gaza are in any position to actually drive out the armed fighters in the first place -- forget the fact that Israel controls Gaza and has it sealed off, just consider the actual physical demand of asking civilians to kick out well-armed and trained guerrilla fighters, for goodness' sake.

And finally, the fact is that any armed resistance group fighting against an occupying power that targets the civilian population as a whole -- as Israel absolutely does, through collective punishment and massive bombing of entire cities and towns, through laws and walls and son on -- will inherently be from among the civilian population and reside within the same areas, much as Jewish resistance fighters in Warsaw were inside the city among civilians as well. You can balk at such a comparison, but it is valid in terms of the fact that we are talking about a city overwhelmingly filled with civilians who are an oppressed and targeted minority, and that a fighting force within that population did launch attacks from within the city.

Guerrilla movements inherently do this -- it doesn't matter if you agree with this particular guerrilla movement, or with the Irgun (the Zionist terrorist group in the 1930s and 1940s in Palestine, Begin was one of several famous members of this group who carried out that attack ont the King David Hotel which was blown up to kill the British military and political persons inside) terrorist campaign, or other such campaigns by fighters or guerrillas or terrorists or whatever you want to call any particular violent group that comes from among the population and disappears back into them after carrying out their attacks. That's how they operate, so the specific issue of "hiding among civilians" can't be pointed to as making the guerrillas and civilians the ones responsible for a large nation-state military attack that massacres the civilians, unless you're going to be consistent and blame ANY and ALL such fighters who hide among the civilians.

Keep in mind, of course, that we are still talking about a city surrounded and controlled by Israel, though. So there's an even further factor involved regarding who can get in and out, requiring fighters to try and sneak in or out, and pretty much stopping civilians from getting away. And also keep in mind that Israel's claims of Hamas fighters using schools and hospitals to launch attacks is disputed not just by Palestinians, but by the Red Cross and others directly witnessing the events, and even UN personnel who saw some of the fighting. Israel has a habit of also attacking ambulances and Red Cross vehicles, claiming militants use them for cover (also a widely disputed claim in terms of how frequently it ever even happens, but consider that regardless, Israel is ADMITTING to violating international law by launching such attacks, which are war crimes -- Israel is openly admitting to war crimes here, and has killed many legitimate medical personnel and blown up hospitals and ambulances repeatedly).

Israel and Israel alone is responsible for the civilian deaths that take place when Israel decides to launch massive attacks into civilian populations. They decide it's worth any and all killing of children, women, the elderly, men who are not fighters, and so on just to get the fighters Israel is after. When they make that decision, they and their apologists should at least have the guts to stand by it and take responsibility rather than this typical cry of "we're never to blame! it's always someone ELSE'S fault!" It relies on dishonesty about the facts that really caused the attack, it's dishonest about the situation in Gaza regarding it being a city under siege, and it's hypocritical about what is or isn't acceptable regarding placement of "legitimate" targets and guerrilla fighters among populations.

Mr. Ebert, take a look at this article regarding the death toll. While the Palestinian death toll rose above 1,000 (it would eventually reach just over 1,300) you will notice the Israeli death toll stood at 13 -- with three of those being civilians:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/14/gaza-city-fighiting-israel-un

Notice that Israel claims that "only" around 300 of the dead were civilians. That is the low-end claim. Most other claims put the civilian toll at somewhere between 800 and almost 1,000 of the over 1,300 total. The Israeli death toll remained at 13, ten of which were military deaths and three of which were civilians. The Palestinian death toll figure and estimate of civilian percentage of deaths are based on hospital records, ambulance reports, and ID of dead bodies by families of the deceased, all part of official the Health Ministry's official totals.

One group in Gaza reports a death toll that reaches over 1,419 (1,167 of which were non-combatants, 918 civilians of which 318 were children). Their report on all deaths, including the names and ages of the dead as well as data on destroyed homes and other damage, was released on September 8th. Here are the names of the dead, their ages, their addresses, and their status as either civilian, militant, or police officer:

http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2008/19-03-2009.html

Here is last week's news report in USA Today about the Israeli group B'Tselem final report on the death toll in Gaza:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-09-09-israel-gaza-war_N.htm

Here's a breakdown of the death tolls on either side since 2000, and notice the source of the data in most cases (the ISRAELI organization B'Tselem, which admits it has more difficulty collecting accurate numbers on Palestinian deaths and thus the numbers of Palestinian deaths are very conservative figures while Israeli figures are highly accurate, yet still tell a shockingly disproportionate tale):

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

Pay close attention to the explanations of the figures, noting the reasons that we know Palestinian figures are actually much higher and that these numbers don't include all of the Palestinians who died due to not reaching medical care soon enough because of road blocks or border closures etc -- a sad but true fact of life for Palestinians as well.

That same Israeli group, B'Tselem, says the Gaza death toll was 1,387 and over half were civilians. Israel's military claims that "only" a quarter of the death toll were civilians, that "only" 10% of the deaths were children (at least one out of every ten people Israel killed, under their own claims, and 33% of the civilian death toll by Israel's own claims), and that the death toll was 1,166:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/middle_east/8245433.stm

RDS, no my comment doesn't prove your point for you. That's an outlandish claim.

You said it's a lie to claim that "Sharia wouldn't be implemented by a devout Muslim majority in Palestine". I provided an example of Hussein's Iraq, which was devoutly Muslim for decades under his rule and which did NOT implement sharia law. Likewise, the Palestinians in the West Bank haven't implemented sharia law, again as I pointed out. Both examples debunk any notion that devout Muslim majorities will inherently implement sharia law, and the last example debunks the claim as it specifically applies to Palestinians. If you can't grasp that, then you shouldn't be making outright assertions that views you disagree with are "lies". Because you are wrong, demonstrably so.

You also said to Tom: "So, what can we expect of your analytical skills? Not much I'm afraid."

Firstly, your argument here is of course a logical fallacy. Can we take a look at all of your beliefs and assertions unrelated to the topic at hand, and then pick one of them as an example as to why we should ignore your claims and arguments here? Of course not, and if you took a critical thinking course they'd explain to you why that's not a valid argument to make.

Regardless of what you or I or anyone thinks or disagrees with etc about Tom's views on other matters, that has no bearing on his comments and views on this topic. Shall we dismiss Jefferson's comments and beliefs regarding democracy, and just claim his analytical skills are worthless in view of his owning slaves? How about the reverse -- Hitler was a vegetarian, and he accurately predicted the responses and actions (or rather, inactions) of the UK and France for many years leading up to WWII, so does that analytical accuracy mean we should consider his views in other areas as NOT insane and horrible and flawed and invalid etc?

What of your own analytical skills regarding my example about Hussein and the West Bank? That's directly within the context of THIS discussion, so shall we disregard your other comments and analytical skills about evolution due to your flawed analysis here regarding my examples above (and my other comments that you didn't respond to, which -- if we applied standard debate thinking -- would mean the arguments not addressed or refuted etc stand as unchallenged and thus accepted)?

You didn't at all even respond to what Tom actually said. And I think he is well aware that your comments are in response to other people's posts here -- I know that as well, and the point is about what you actually said, and that we both take exception to it for many reasons. And you've mostly ignored and not responded to those exceptions, which were spelled out pretty clearly and logically.

Mark Hughes@ Wauw. I don't even know how to respond to all the things you write in an extremely arrogant and hateful way. Apparantly you misunderstand what I'm trying to say too. But I'm glad you know everything about the background for the prostest at Toronto. If you believe it has nothing to do with the country in question then fine. Clearly you feel way above everybody else.

Just the fact that you can accuse me of "ignoring and denying what's happening to the Arabs" is beyond bad behavior. I already said a lot of bad things is going on. But you know everything about life in Israel. So go look at your "stats" and leave the rest of us to work things out in real life which focuses on what is happening now and not what has happened.

I look forward to spend my annualy three weeks in Israel in october with a job I enjoy and talk to arab friends who go to work every day and have good jewish friends and colleagues and enjoy life in this terrible "national socialist state based on race". Just as I look forward to talk to people who isn't as happy and have experiences with discrimination.

I'm done. You can respond to this post in an even more arrogant way than before. I don't care. I won't read it.

Mark Hughes wrote:
And in fact, yes, the death toll IS relevant when you have a comparison between an occupying power that has killed a vastly larger number of people -- overwhelmingly civilians -- and a group of people with organizations fighting the occupying power and causing far smaller numbers of injuries, deaths, and damage.

When the Palestinians allow rockets to be fired from their territory into Israeli, they are BEGGING for a military response. They KNOW the Israelis must respond and they know that the Israelis, being a professional military, will rack up the higher body count. The Palestinians act KNOWING (HOPING!) THAT WILL BE THE OUTCOME.

Justify it all you want with claims of "occupation;" the other side will make the counterclaim of "terrorism." If the Palestinians want to end "occupation," they should start negotiating in good faith. If the Palestinians don't want reprisals for "terrorism," they should stop shooting missiles at Israeli civlian areas.

If comparisons don't matter, then you could claim that one Arab shooting one Israeli justifies Israel killing all Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. Would that be legitimate? Would you claim it's "reductive" to note the gross disparity?

No, because committing genocide and benefitting from military advantage are not the same thing. (Interestingly enough, one side in this conflict makes genocidal references part of their propaganda, but it isn't the Israelis...)

You and I know...and the Palestinians and the Israelis know...that every time the Palestinians provoke a response from the Israelis, that more Palestinians will die in the ensuing conflict than Israelis. I make the claim that it is therefore absolutely IMMORAL for the Palestinians to provoke. And it's hypocritical for them to decry the carnage since it is exactly what they want.

What was the phrase a person above used in regard to Palestinian strategy? "The calculus of death." Indeed.

And in fact, yes, the death toll IS relevant when you have a comparison between an occupying power that has killed a vastly larger number of people -- overwhelmingly civilians -- and a group of people with organizations fighting the occupying power and causing far smaller numbers of injuries, deaths, and damage.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Yea, those pesky occupying forces are always so evil -- 'the world would be such a better place were it not for those domineering British with all their 'fairness''.
With your reasoning we shouldn't allow guards to lock down prisons owing to a knife attack, since it's unfair to all the other prisoners; prisoners who never did anything to the guards.

At some point the people of Palestine need to realize they are going to spend their lives as a proxy 'bludgeon' by other Islamic states; but, currently they have no such inclination to believe anything of the kind, since they hope for a 'quick kill' of Israel from Iran or another group , even OBL; of helpful Islamic nations; and, in the mean time, it's fun with masked and wrapped, pajama clad, sashed and bomb belted, nimble warriors and their civilian 'squires'.
Where would they get such fantastic absurd ideas?
Palestinians are in truth, the majority with all other Islamic nations in collectively working to eradicate this ancient enemy ( an enemy said by Mohammed to have been spawned from pigs; or, was it apes? -- I forget the hadith; but, hey, he (PBUH) was into evolution!). The Nazi's had nothing on Mohammed or this Grand Mufti, Dana speaks of.
Islam does recognize Jews as 'people of the book', just with a very questionable genealogical record; tolerable, once they pay the jizyah.
When this cleansing of Israel from the map is accomplished, SA and other rich countries will bring their Palestinian brothers and sisters in Islam up in the world, and give them high paying housekeeping jobs, that once went to kuffirs from the Philippines.

I am unclear as to what portions of his original defense of the TIFF City To City program Mr. Ebert now disagrees with. Does Mr. Ebert now think that the City To City program should have in fact boycotted Tel Aviv, as the protesters contend?

Mr. Ebert's use the word "boycott" in his original defense of TIFF was correct. Admittedly, the protesters did not want all of TIFF to boycott Tel Aviv filmmakers. But the protesters certainly DID want the City To City program to have boycotted Tel Aviv, as Mr. Ebert correctly noted in his original defense of City To City.

Mr. Ebert's removal of the word "boycott" from a review he already wrote and published is strange, to say the least. Perhaps if Mr. Ebert did not believe what he stated in his cogent and wise initial article then he shouldn't have written it. But why he doesn't believe what he wrote mystifies me.

Roger,

Am I to take it that you are apologizing for misstating the point and text of the protest, in such a knee-jerk way yourself?

You falsely claimed that it was directed at the "artists" and went on at length on how wrong that is (would be if it actually was connected to reality, which it isn't).

You put the term "apartheid regime" in quotes, without clarification. Are you disputing the apartheid nature of Israel, or not?

Ethnic cleansing and genocide are not okay. Collective punishment, as in Gaza today, is a war crime. Anything that aids in those pursuits should be protested, despite the costs to those who stand up for what is right.

anti-boycott pundits demand immunity for Israeli “artists” from politics and retribution, but they forget those Israelis are IDF soldiers who might have killed or maimed innocent civilians. They ignore Israel’s apartheid is the handiwork of Israel’s majority of voters. If art grants automatic immunity, maybe soon Al-Qaeda operatives will pickup oil painting.

And in fact, yes, the death toll IS relevant when you have a comparison between an occupying power that has killed a vastly larger number of people -- overwhelmingly civilians -- and a group of people with organizations fighting the occupying power and causing far smaller numbers of injuries, deaths, and damage.
_____________________________________________________________________________________

Yea, those pesky occupying forces are always so evil. 'The world would be such a better place were it not for those domineering British with all their 'fairness''!
With your reasoning we shouldn't allow guards to lock down prisons owing to a knife attack, since it's unfair to all the other prisoners; prisoners who never did anything to the guards.
As if Islam doesn’t contribute, in any way, to the rejection of peace when offered, and the violent persistence of the Palestinians.
Yes , Hugh perhaps you’d be in agreement to lob Missiles into Israel, like some dork who’d pitch a concrete block from an overpass onto a stream of 70 mph traffic because the Interstate had cut through his chicken farm, but I find it criminal.

At some point the people of Palestine need to realize they are going to spend their lives as a proxy 'bludgeon' by other Islamic states; but, currently they have no such inclination to believe anything of the kind, since they hope for a 'quick kill' of Israel from Iran or another group , even OBL; and, in the mean time, it's fun with masked and wrapped, pajama clad, sashed and bomb belted, nimble warriors and their civilian ‘squires’.
Where would they get such fantastic absurd ideas? Perhaps Hamas ... and, the Western protesters incite some of their recalcitrant behavior.
Palestinians are in truth, the majority with all other Islamic nations, in collectively with them working to wipe out Isreal ( an enemy said by Mohammed to have been spawned from pigs; or, was it apes? -- but, hey, he (PBUH) was into evolution! Sadly, fanatics get it from the Quran itself, in three different verses: 7:166, 2:65, and 5:60.). The Nazi's had nothing on Mohammed or this Grand Mufti, Dana speaks of.
Islam does recognize Jews as 'people of the book', just with a very questionable genealogical record; tolerable, once they pay the jizyah, and good neighbors if they step into the gutter when passing Muslims on the sidewalk.
When this cleansing of Israel from the map is accomplished, SA and other rich countries will bring their Palestinian brothers and sisters in Islam up in the world, and give them high paying housekeeping jobs, once provided to kuffirs from the Philippines.

Hugh argues:
You said it's a lie to claim that "Sharia wouldn't be implemented by a devout Muslim majority in Palestine". I provided an example of Hussein's Iraq, which was devoutly Muslim for decades under his rule and which did NOT implement sharia law.

______________________________________________________________

The point you make 'for me' is that Iraq is a special circumstance.
First, Saddam himself was an iron fisted murderous dictator who ruled with his law, along with those of Islam; and, he, provided a sham illusion of a 'moderate' society for the West.
Iraq, in truth, was horrendous with Islamic law behind the scenes, and Saddam was a good Muslim, even though Saddam was useful to the West and the USA against the Iranians. He was up to the task of implementing sharia like tortures and violence upon anybody who stood in his way.
Secondly, the ME and most Islamic lands had been under the control of the West for hundreds of years. What you refer to is merely the Islamic world shaking off the last vestiges of 'Colonialism' (best thing to happen to 'em) and shaking off the imposition of Western law.
Thirdly, As I pointed out even Malaysia and Indonesia are implementing sharia in the provinces and for Muslims if the population is mixed -- even our puppets of Iraq and Afghanistan support sharia. Iraq has also delayed sharia probably since the population is so divided between Shiite and Sunni and Kurd. But as with Pakistan, sharia as a shadow law system of the 'official' law -- or even honor killings in the USA sharia is implemented by devout Muslims. It's no exaggeration to say sharia IS as much a part of Islam as the Koran.

The Israeli film industry invented two new film genres: the I-Am-Guilty-of-Something film genre where the Israeli soldier admits to guilt but what is he guilty of we never know. Then there is the Tortured-Lost-Soul genre where the Israeli soldier suffers the emotional horrors of war, but no one knows who's at fault, but we end up feeling so much sympathy for the soldier and hating his faceless victims, those "savages" who caused this decent soldier to commit inhumane acts. It’s an utterly intellectually dishonest form of filmmaking.

RDS wrote: " Yea, those pesky occupying forces are always so evil -- 'the world would be such a better place were it not for those domineering British with all their 'fairness'."

Which says pretty much everything we need to know about your views on occupation and belief that colonizing powers are bringing enlightenment to all those pesky unwashed ignorant barbarians. Also says something about your notion of "fairness".

RDS wrote: " With your reasoning we shouldn't allow guards to lock down prisons owing to a knife attack, since it's unfair to all the other prisoners; prisoners who never did anything to the guards."

At least your subconscious made you compare it to prisons, prisoners, and prison guards. Very telling. Especially when added to your notion of the "fairness" and goodness of colonial occupation.

RDS wrote: " currently they have no such inclination to believe anything of the kind, since they hope for a 'quick kill' of Israel from Iran or another group , even OBL"

A grossly uninformed rant about Palestinians, most of whom only want to live their lives in fairness and in justice. But ignoring the truth, and relying on hateful stereotypes of Arabs and Palestinians is a necessity for maintaining this fiction about the situation that you prefer.

RDS wrote: " and, in the mean time, it's fun with masked and wrapped, pajama clad, sashed and bomb belted, nimble warriors and their civilian 'squires'."

Why not just call them all "humus-smelling ragheads" and be done with it? You're pretty much there.

RDS wrote: " Palestinians are in truth, the majority with all other Islamic nations in collectively working to eradicate this ancient enemy"

Oh, spare me, seriously. Let's see some evidence of this "collectively working" to eradicate Israel. Meanwhile, we'll compare Israel's actions of "working to eradicate" Arabs and Palestinians if that's the terminology you want to try and apply to either side (and if you apply it to one side, then I'm gonna show ya why your logic makes it applicable from the other side) -- should be fun, I've got a whole stack of examples for you.

RDS wrote: " The Nazi's had nothing on Mohammed or this Grand Mufti, Dana speaks of."

Aaaaand, again with the Nazi comparisons. Okay, then I'll keep using your own examples and logic to point out that in terms of actual success rates, Mohammed's got nothing on your beloved Israeli government in terms of comparison to Nazi eradication efforts. Does that equal comparison seem fair to you? Does everything have to be "Nazis, Nazis, Nazis" for you? Apparently so.

RDS wrote: " When this cleansing of Israel from the map is accomplished,"

Well, when this cleansing of Palestine from the map is accomplished-- oh, wait, it already was. Now it's just the simple matter of exterminating the Palestinian people themselves, right? How's that equal comparison work for you? Again, let's compare the attempts and efforts toward mutual "cleansing from the map". Look around at what's been done to fulfill this supposed shared Arab goal, as compared to the supposed shared Israeli goal. Is that a fair comparison? You bettcha it is, if we rely on your warped logic and worldview. And it's not going to be helpful to your case, so maybe you should stop with the sweeping racist condemnations and falsehoods, or the comparisons will have to keep being pointed out.

RDS wrote: " The point you make 'for me' is that Iraq is a special circumstance."

Sure it is. Because it refutes your claim, so it's "special". Anything not fitting into your outright assertion is "special", should be ignored, pay no attention to the Arabs behind the curtain!

RDS wrote: " First, Saddam himself was an iron fisted murderous dictator who ruled with his law, along with those of Islam; and, he, provided a sham illusion of a 'moderate' society for the West.
Iraq, in truth, was horrendous with Islamic law behind the scenes, and Saddam was a good Muslim, even though Saddam was useful to the West and the USA against the Iranians. He was up to the task of implementing sharia like tortures and violence upon anybody who stood in his way."

Whoa -- get a history book. If you are going to try to assert Hussein instituted Islamic law, you're gonna lose.

How absurd to claim he implemented sharia law by referencing "tortures and violence upon anybody who stood in his way" -- using your logic, and your love of all references Nazi, I'm amazed to now realize Hitler enacted sharia law. Bush enacted sharia law at Guantanamo! Wow!

For cripes' sake, Hussein enacted torture and violence because he was a violent dictator. It was not sharia law, it was brutality like brutality in many other nations. You are demonstrating a serious lack of informed opinion on this matter.

RDS wrote: " Secondly, the ME and most Islamic lands had been under the control of the West for hundreds of years. What you refer to is merely the Islamic world shaking off the last vestiges of 'Colonialism' (best thing to happen to 'em) and shaking off the imposition of Western law."

Seriously, run -- don't walk -- to get that history book. This is just silly. Hussein represented Arab nationalism, and that was a founding basis for the coup he helped institute in Iraq. He ruled for decades, first behind the scenes and later obviously directly. To dismiss this as "shaking off the last vestiges of 'colonialism' is a joke. But wait -- you say "best thing to happen to 'em" in reference to shaking off colonialism, but you are forgetting your love for white colonial domination to impose "fairness" on these Arab barbarians! Gasp!

RDS wrote: " Thirdly, As I pointed out even Malaysia and Indonesia are implementing sharia in the provinces and for Muslims if the population is mixed -- even our puppets of Iraq and Afghanistan support sharia. Iraq has also delayed sharia probably since the population is so divided between Shiite and Sunni and Kurd. But as with Pakistan, sharia as a shadow law system of the 'official' law -- or even honor killings in the USA sharia is implemented by devout Muslims. It's no exaggeration to say sharia IS as much a part of Islam as the Koran."

This has nothing to do with the fact that Hussein's Iraq stands as just one glaring example refuting your assertion that it's a "lie" to say Palestinians won't implement sharia law. You just point to examples of sharia law elsewhere. You say Iraq "delayed sharia" just because it's divided among different groups. Well, the fact is that Iraq didn't rely on Islamic law for 50 years, from the 1958 coup until the current times. Thinking this is due to a divided population is a pretty inaccurate guess. Read that history book, really.

And of course, you conveniently ignore the most glaring proof that your assertion is demonstrably false -- the fact that Palestinians haven't in fact instituted sharia law, despite having a pretty long time in which to have done so. You stated as fact that it's a "lie" to say Palestinians won't implement sharia law, so show us your crystal ball, explain why there are clear examples disproving your assertions, or at least admit your outright assertion is outright wrong.

Michael wrote: " I don't even know how to respond to all the things you write in an extremely arrogant and hateful way. Apparantly you misunderstand what I'm trying to say too."

Um, go read your posts that I responded to, and then see if you can come up with a new and more accurate definition of "arrogant" and "hateful". Thanks.

And no, I understood you perfectly. It's simply wrong, misrepresents the facts and situation, and relies on typical distortions.

Michael wrote: " If you believe it has nothing to do with the country in question then fine. Clearly you feel way above everybody else."

No, I just feel way more informed than a couple of you offering distorted, inaccurate assertions about what's going on, and I feel more honest about how I'm referencing the situation -- as compared for example to your sentence right there suggesting that I or anyone else said the festival protest has "nothing to do with the country in question", a flagrant misrepresentation of what anyone's said, and a logical fallacy (again). If you make false claims, distort what we've said, and use logical fallacies, you shouldn't complain when someone points it out to you.

Michael wrote: " Just the fact that you can accuse me of 'ignoring and denying what's happening to the Arabs' is beyond bad behavior."

Oh, come on now Michael, bad behavior is ignoring and denying what's happening to the Arabs -- which you did, which I pointed out that you did through citation of your comments and evidence disproving your claims. Acting like that and then accusing me of "bad behavior" is just invalid. You treat it as if there's just bad stuff happening on both sides and that's that, a simplified version of the situation that ignores context and the important histories involved.

Michael wrote: " But you know everything about life in Israel. So go look at your 'stats' and leave the rest of us to work things out in real life which focuses on what is happening now and not what has happened."

What is that, a snide dismissal of "stats"? What, facts and statistics and the evidence of what's really happening have no place here, is that what you're implying? And, maybe you better go look at the comments from you and others who focused on "what has happened" before you get too self-righteous about that, okay? When the facts and stats and evidence don't say what you want them to say, you dismiss them and act like anyone concerned with the truth and what's happening isn't really "working things out in real life" -- an unfortunate comment here, in light of my personal involvement on this matter, but hey I won't get into a p*ssing contest with you over who does what to try to help things. But I'm quite proud of the work I've done over the decades on this issue.

Michael wrote: " I look forward to spend my annualy three weeks in Israel in october with a job I enjoy and talk to arab friends who go to work every day and have good jewish friends and colleagues and enjoy life in this terrible 'national socialist state based on race'. Just as I look forward to talk to people who isn't as happy and have experiences with discrimination."

Then I encourage you to also visit Gaza and the West Bank, visit southern Lebanon. Meet some of the Israeli human rights groups who strongly oppose Israeli policy toward Arabs and who protest and work to end the occupation.

And keep in mind the context of my comment about "national socialist state based on race", in response to others' comments. Or ignore the context, avoid Gaza and the West Bank and Lebanon, and avoid people outside your circle of friends who might have different experiences and perspectives. But if you choose the latter, you'll remain within a distorted view of the situation and what's really happening. There are plenty of Israelis and Jews around the world who have changed their opinions and positions on these matters, some only after many years and a long involvement with people on all sides of the issue.

The Jewish heritage on my mother's side of my family, my limited exposure to viewpoints and realities outside of those that conformed with and reinforced my own original viewpoint on these matters, and my association with people who mostly agreed with my former positions, are among some of the reasons it took many decades for my own view to change dramatically from one of strong support of Israel alongside strong condemnation of Arab states and Palestinian actions and politics. I look back at my previous perspective, my previous statements, and am ashamed at how blind and uninformed they were. I freely admit my errors, my misunderstanding, and my willingness to look the other way and deny or ignore facts and evidence that conflicted with a viewpoint I didn't want to change. But it happened, and I'm glad it did.

Maybe it was pigs and apes ( from the Quran itself, in three different verses: 7:166, 2:65, and 5:60.) Hazim, that caused the decent Israeli soldier to commit inhumane acts.
'Course the provocation of some dork dropping a concete block upon your windshield from a freeway overpass can get these soldiers annoyed ... oh, no the usual is missiles randomly lobbed into the Israeli soldiers land, loaded with a couple pounds of TNT.
What's his beef ??!!