To be fair, Jonathan Glazer of London, who won an Academy Award as director of The Zone of Interest, did not say that he and those in whose name he supposedly spoke refuted their Jewishness. Some misconstrued his rambling presentation. What he did read out from his prepared remarks included:
“Our film shows where dehumanization leads at its worst. It shaped all of our past and present. Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people. Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza — all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?”
A fortnight later, Jonathan Jakubowicz, who directed Resistance, joined many in Hollywood who criticized Glazer’s remarks, saying “conflict disinformation prolongs the war.” Indeed, Glazer was spreading disinformation.
But Glazer’s first problem was that within days, both men who were standing next to him not only distanced themselves from his remarks but denied that they had approved them in any way. Glazer fabricated their support, it would seem.
The Zone of Interest producer, Len Blavatnik, who invested in Israel’s Channel 13, had his spokesperson release to the media that he “didn’t clear the speech.” Danny Cohen, another executive producer, repudiated Glazer’s statement, saying, “I just fundamentally disagree with Jonathan on this.” They may be disappointed that, at present, Glazer has managed to have public opinion discuss not the film but a few inanities he uttered.
Glazer’s second problem was people not grasping his syntax.
The cultural reporter at the Vox site tried to be helpful. What Glazer meant to say, she clarified, was that “he and his collaborators reject that Jewishness and the Holocaust are being used to justify the ongoing military offensive in Gaza.” She suggested that Jews around the world have perceived that their identity “has been co-opted.”
But is this charge that the Gaza campaign is justified by referring to the Holocaust true? Or is it the truth that Jews are being reminded of the atmosphere and political reality that existed prior to the Holocaust? When Jews could not enter the Palestine Mandate because the number of certificates was curtailed and then severely restricted. When Western democracies turned Jews away from their countries and instead sought a comfortable arrangement with Nazi Germany. When Jews had no protectors. When very few cared about Jews at all.
The issue in Glazer's speech
Thus, we arrive at the third problem in Glazer’s speech. Instead of helping people relate to what happened at Auschwitz and to the character and personalities of the Nazis who sought to exterminate the Jewish people – subjects of his film – and the ideology that guided them, Glazer assisted those who seek to downplay the Holocaust. Moreover, he aided those who, wrongly, compare those events with the situation of Arabs today, who claim to be suffering a genocide, instead of with the Israelis, who suffered a mini-Holocaust event on the seventh of October.
The fourth problem with Glazer’s readout was the simple fact that Israel has not occupied Gaza since 2005. Of course, if he was referring to the Arabs asserting that Israel has been an occupying power either since 1948 or even 1967, his understanding of the issue is facile.
So, once again, the debate over the Holocaust has been reignited but within a negative, anti-Jewish context that played into the hands of the anti-Israel, anti-Zionism crowd.
To grasp just how damaging the content of Glazer’s speech was, we need not only to deconstruct the heart of his statement that accused an “occupation” of having “led to a conflict,” in which “so many people” suffer “dehumanization.” We need to realize that the viciousness of his words is a result of what could be called the organ grinder’s monkey syndrome. US Senator Charles Schumer’s recent speech attacking Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu only highlighted that affliction. As renowned writer John Podhoretz framed it, Jews seem to feel comfortable “trash[ing] Bibi while supporting Israel.”
Seeking acceptance?
OR IS IT that in order to feel comfortable, accepted, and safe in a Gentile society, these Jews trash Israel, various members of its government, policies of the government, or elements of Israeli society? Those suffering from the syndrome hear the music being played, and they dance accordingly. They see the welcoming applause of acceptance.
Several prominent Jews who donate to the US Democratic Party have now joined together in signing a letter from other Democratic funders, calling on President Biden to renege on his “unconditional” support for Israel’s military engagement with Hamas. They are warning him that if he continues that support, it could hurt his reelection prospects.
The increase in recent years of Jew vs Jew confrontations is an important success for the forces seeking to erase Jewish national identity. In centuries past, notwithstanding all the internal bickering, including Orthodox vs Reform, Enlightenment vs ultra-Orthodox, Hassidim vs. Litvaks, and Ashkenazim vs Sephardim, opposition to Zionism has attracted the widest range of dissentious antipathy except, perhaps, for the apostates, who cooperated with the Spanish Inquisition and the anti-Talmud condemnations.
Whether it is auto-antisemitism, seeking to assimilate, uneasiness with high-profile Jewish identity, or overt rejection of the idea of ethnicity altogether, the willingness of too many Jews to align themselves with what is obviously negative as well as harmful phenomena, like what we have been witnessing, points to psychological and social weaknesses.
The attacks on AIPAC, the sit-ins at major Jewish organizations, the cooperation with pro-Palestine forces on campuses, and the rampaging through the streets have long superseded the norm of protests. These actions constitute battles. There is irrational anger displayed. There are signs of growing antisemitism. And Jews are at the heart of all this.
The organ is grinding out raucous and off-tune music. And the monkey is baring teeth.
The writer is a researcher, analyst, and opinion commentator on political, cultural, and media issues.