In my view, the Jewish Heritage Centre, which recently screened the film, is mistaken when it suggests that Bradley Pollock is “fixated” on the remarks of one voice in the film, (a voice which I found to be very anti-Israel).
Anti-Israel bias is reflected, in my view, both expressly and implicitly in the film by more than one source in the following ways:
1. An interviewee Lasha compares 1948 Arab refugees to Jews dispossessed of their homes in the Holocaust. She says words to the effect that “…while Jews were dispossessed from their homes in Europe ,the same thing happened to the Palestinian people with the Nakba…” (the Nakba or Catastrophe is how Arabs refer to the 1948 war.) I understood her words to mean that she was suggesting that just as Jews were dispossessed of their homes by the Nazis during the Holocaust, Arab refugees were dispossessed of their homes by Israel during the 1948 war. (I think it is very reasonable to infer this from her words). This odious comparison ignores the fact that there would have been no war and no Arab refugees at all if the Arabs had accepted the 1947 UN Partition Plan, nor were Arab refugees sent to gas chambers. Further, note that there was no one in the film who rebutted this odious comparison, a comparison which in my view arguably may meet or may come dangerously close to meeting the IHRA ( International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism. That definition gives a list of examples of antisemitism and says that “Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis” can, taking into account the overall context, amount to antisemitism. In terms of context, when Lasha made this odious comparison the filmmakers, who edited the film, played it up by showing on the screen archival footage of a Jew with a yellow star carrying a bag of his belongings during the Holocaust, and then showing archival footage of Arab refugees, including in tents at a refugee camp, and walking with their bags of belongings. These powerful visual images re-enforced the odious comparison made by Lasha. ( To see the complete IHRA definition of antisemitism go to:https://www.holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definitions-charters/working-definition-antisemitism)
Lasha referred to there being 1 million refugees, which is an inflated number. Lasha also criticized Birthright trips to Israel. When asked about her Birthright experience , she answered “Birth-wrong…” Lasha, by the way, gets quite a lot of air time in the film.
2. There was another female interviewee named Lexi who said when referring to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that “…it’s almost like the oppressor is becoming the oppressee type of thing and that’s not what Jews are about.” I believe she inverted her words and meant to say that Jews were the oppressees but Israel had now became the oppressor. Taken in context these comments in my view, were very critical of Israel.
3.In the film, one of the film makers Sandra Bulloch says that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “does trace a lot back to colonialism.” There is no clear explanation given to what she meant by this. I have wondered whether she was suggesting that Jews were colonialists allowed in by the British, who did not not belong to the region. In fact, Jews have thousands of years of history in the holy land and are indigenous to the region. I took Bulloch’s statement to be critical of the Jewish side in the conflict. If the film maker meant something other than what I have suggested, in my view she should have explained herself better.
4. The filmmakers, Johanna Reimer Henteleff and Sandra Bulloch refer to the section of their film on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “Israel & Palestine, the elephant in the room”. In my view, this title itself is not neutral, but by inference denigrates Israel’s treatment of Palestinians, suggesting there is a problem with it. Note that the phrase “Elephant in the Room” is defined as “a major problem or controversial issue that is obviously present but avoided as a subject for discussion because it is more comfortable to do so.” I would, suggest, that, on the contrary, the subject of Israel and the Palestinians is not avoided but comes up for extensive discussion at the United Nations, for example, which is obsessed with condemning Israel.
5. At another point, the filmmaker Johanna Reimer-Henteleff said words to the effect that she doesn’t feel the need to “protect” Israel. She says “…I don’t feel the need to like protect it…” I would not call that a pro-Israel statement.
6. At another point in the film, film maker Sandra Bulloch says that one of the things they pushed on her Birthright trip was “feeling a responsibility to Israel”, but she did not say she felt this.
Taken as a whole, the section on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the film in my view had a decidedly anti-Israel tone to it.
Additionally, the Jewish Heritage Centre in its letter has suggested that in regard to Birthright, it is “balanced” for a film to have one person who is critical of it and one person who is positive about it. But if 99% of those who attended Birthright Israel found the trip to be a worthwhile experience and 1% found the experience to be propaganda, is it considered appropriate to select one from each group to present their perspectives and call this balanced ?
Further, as to the issue of lack of balance re: Israel, in my view one of the interviewees in the film could be categorized as "far -left" , but there was no one interviewed in the film from the “far-right." I also don't think that there was anyone in the film who could even be described as "right wing,” let alone “far right”. The woman who had served in the IDF and briefly mentioned the existence of terror attacks said that “innocent” people are suffering “on both sides.” This can hardly be categorized as a right wing sentiment, and in any event , just because someone served in the IDF doesn’t at all mean they are right-wing politically vis a vis the Palestinians.
I have also wondered whether the Jewish Heritage Centre in its letter has implied that Bradley Pollock is on the "far Right"? I certainly hope not. Bradley uses the words “occupation” and "Palestinian territories." A member of the “far right” would not use the word “occupation", and would not refer to the territories as "Palestinian territories" but rather as "Judea and Samaria." I would suggest that Bradley Pollock is a centrist (he has told me, for example, he is against new settlement development), who is willing to call out anti-Israel bias for what it is.
Bradley Pollock believes the film should have been shown by the Jewish Heritage Centre but panelists ought to have exposed its anti-Israel bias, and provided the context it sorely lacked. While I respect Bradley’s view, it is my opinion that there was so much to unpack in regard to the conflict because of the way it was portrayed in the film that this could not be easily done without taking a lot of time, such that it would have been better not to screen the film at all. Additionally, I note that there was no one on the panel assembled by the Jewish Heritage Centre with particular expertise on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, who could have provided the necessary historical context.
Email
Share
RSS
