British Film director Ken Loach has called
for a boycott of all cultural and sporting events supported
by the Israeli state, adding that Israel must become a pariah state.
I am all for boycotts and, indeed, Israel
has given and continues to give good reasons for boycott.
Boycotts can be legitimate on a personal
level, as an expression of serious disagreement or even revulsion and more importantly
as an attempt to exert group pressure for affecting change. Yet, they should be
set up not only emotionally, but also fairly. I googled the terms “Ken Loach”
and “boycott” and found that the one and only boycott Loach is calling for is
on Israel. There is not a single other country in the world, the actions of
which Loach wishes to bring to a halt by means of a boycott. How about Russia,
North Korea, Saudi Arabia, China, to name but a few candidates? Why does Loach
support the cultural output of various dictatorships around the world by not
boycotting them?
PS: It may be hard for Loach to accept, but
his call for a boycott is likely to have as much impact as my blogged
ruminations.
Ken Loach does not mention genocide in Ruanda, nor a Syrian dictator`s war on his country`s population, he does not object to the filmed decapitations of journalists (and countless others) by radical Sunnites in Iraq, and - much closer to home - he does not ask how it was ever possible that 1400 little girls and boys were sexually abused in a small town in the middle of England without anybody objecting.
ReplyDeleteNo, all he desires is to turn Israel into a pariah state by whatever means.
Here is an example of a successful, intelligent, wealthy artist whose body and soul is infested with antijudaism. Why are the minds of the likes of Loach, Günther Grass or Henning Mankell contaminated by such a hatred of Jews?
It is one of those inexplicable psychological phenomena which defy analysis.
Is there an hint of regert from old ways and a hint of support to Israel and the Israeli people? :-)
ReplyDeleteNo regrets. :)
ReplyDelete