Sixties Fan
Diamond Member
- Mar 6, 2017
- 73,586
- 12,734
- 2,290
(Lies always travel faster than the truth )
For a festival that was meant to be a celebration of normal programming after two COVID-interrupted years, it has come as a rather rude awakening. But arguably, the organisers might have seen it coming.
In March, New York-based activist Muhib Nabulsi wrote to the festival, which has three staff and has been running for more than 30 years, to object to the āharmful programmingā of Israeli director Eytan Foxās film Sublet in an online-only mini-event that month.
āFoxās films have been widely criticised for āpinkwashingā ā perpetuating an image of Israel as a queer-friendly safe-haven in order to conceal the immense injustices committed against the Palestinian people, especially queer Palestinians,ā Nabulsi wrote.
āAn essential component of pinkwashing ā and the reason it is so fervently supported by the Israeli government ā is its utility in propagating the notion that Israel is āthe only liberal democracy in the Middle Eastā,ā he continued.
āThe absence of Palestinian films in your program ā or those from anywhere else in the Arabic-speaking world ā inevitably contributes to the further promulgation of this falsehood.ā
The charge of āpinkwashingā has become a strategic tool in the campaign against Israelās ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, with activist group Pinkwatching Israel hailing the āglobal movement to promote queer-powered calls against pinkwashing and pushing the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment Campaign against Israel to the forefront of the global queer movementā.
Program director Spiro Economopoulos wrote back in defence of the festivalās commitment to diversity, citing films in recent years from Kenya and Nigeria and āthe Arabic-speaking worldā. However, he added that āin regards to focusing on queer African and Arab-speaking stories, we just didnāt have the quality or quantity of films available to usā.
In November, the issue flared up again over The Swimmer.
To be clear, it is not the content of the film that is at stake. āThe issue is the mode of cultural production,ā Sydney-based Palestinian activist Fahad Ali wrote of the issue last week that āwhere an artist in Israel who might otherwise be well-meaning is given a conditional grant that requires ā¦ adherence to content guidelines that prohibit a critical view of the State of Israelā.
The Swimmer received 800,000 shekels (roughly $A350,000) towards its budget from the Israel Film Fund (the fund claims feature budgets in the country typically range between $US500,000 to $US1 million). BDS activists claim that, in order to receive such funding, artists āmust sign a contract that includes two clauses that declare: (1) I will not undermine the policies of the state of Israel, and (2) I will do my best to serve the policies of the state of Israel. This is state propaganda.ā
The protestersā view is that including a film from Israel that has received state funding is, therefore, tantamount to tacit approval of the stateās policies vis a vis Palestine ā policies that they equate with apartheid and/or fascism. And on that basis, a festival that purports to support all LGBTQI+ communities can not in good conscience program such a film.
However, Lisa Shiloach-Uzrad, executive director of the Israel Film Fund, insists āthere is not an ounce of truthā in the claim that filmmakers must sign such clauses.
---
āWe realise we need to make sure we are listening to the community and that the community continues to change and be aligned to community views,ā he says. āNot specifically about the issue that the protesters have raised, but how we represent all sectors of the community.ā
On the question of films from Israel, however, he is unyielding.
āWe will not discriminate based on country or national identity,ā he says. āIf in the future a film were to come from Israel, it would be assessed on its merits.ā
(full article online)
www.smh.com.au
For a festival that was meant to be a celebration of normal programming after two COVID-interrupted years, it has come as a rather rude awakening. But arguably, the organisers might have seen it coming.
In March, New York-based activist Muhib Nabulsi wrote to the festival, which has three staff and has been running for more than 30 years, to object to the āharmful programmingā of Israeli director Eytan Foxās film Sublet in an online-only mini-event that month.
āFoxās films have been widely criticised for āpinkwashingā ā perpetuating an image of Israel as a queer-friendly safe-haven in order to conceal the immense injustices committed against the Palestinian people, especially queer Palestinians,ā Nabulsi wrote.
āAn essential component of pinkwashing ā and the reason it is so fervently supported by the Israeli government ā is its utility in propagating the notion that Israel is āthe only liberal democracy in the Middle Eastā,ā he continued.
āThe absence of Palestinian films in your program ā or those from anywhere else in the Arabic-speaking world ā inevitably contributes to the further promulgation of this falsehood.ā
The charge of āpinkwashingā has become a strategic tool in the campaign against Israelās ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories, with activist group Pinkwatching Israel hailing the āglobal movement to promote queer-powered calls against pinkwashing and pushing the Boycott, Sanctions, and Divestment Campaign against Israel to the forefront of the global queer movementā.
Program director Spiro Economopoulos wrote back in defence of the festivalās commitment to diversity, citing films in recent years from Kenya and Nigeria and āthe Arabic-speaking worldā. However, he added that āin regards to focusing on queer African and Arab-speaking stories, we just didnāt have the quality or quantity of films available to usā.
In November, the issue flared up again over The Swimmer.
To be clear, it is not the content of the film that is at stake. āThe issue is the mode of cultural production,ā Sydney-based Palestinian activist Fahad Ali wrote of the issue last week that āwhere an artist in Israel who might otherwise be well-meaning is given a conditional grant that requires ā¦ adherence to content guidelines that prohibit a critical view of the State of Israelā.
The Swimmer received 800,000 shekels (roughly $A350,000) towards its budget from the Israel Film Fund (the fund claims feature budgets in the country typically range between $US500,000 to $US1 million). BDS activists claim that, in order to receive such funding, artists āmust sign a contract that includes two clauses that declare: (1) I will not undermine the policies of the state of Israel, and (2) I will do my best to serve the policies of the state of Israel. This is state propaganda.ā
The protestersā view is that including a film from Israel that has received state funding is, therefore, tantamount to tacit approval of the stateās policies vis a vis Palestine ā policies that they equate with apartheid and/or fascism. And on that basis, a festival that purports to support all LGBTQI+ communities can not in good conscience program such a film.
However, Lisa Shiloach-Uzrad, executive director of the Israel Film Fund, insists āthere is not an ounce of truthā in the claim that filmmakers must sign such clauses.
---
āWe realise we need to make sure we are listening to the community and that the community continues to change and be aligned to community views,ā he says. āNot specifically about the issue that the protesters have raised, but how we represent all sectors of the community.ā
On the question of films from Israel, however, he is unyielding.
āWe will not discriminate based on country or national identity,ā he says. āIf in the future a film were to come from Israel, it would be assessed on its merits.ā
(full article online)
āPinkwashingā Israel: How Melbourneās Queer Film Festival became the target of protest
Filmmakers withdrew, patrons cancelled tickets and protesters massed as the BDS movement set its sights on the Melbourne Queer Film Festival.
