Introduction
Thus the question of Godard's anti-semitism has come up again, on the occasion of an "Honorary Award," this Saturday, November 13th in Los Angeles, for the entirety of his work.
To begin with, I should say that I do not like this climate of Inquisition that pervades the intellectual and artistic world, both in Europe and in the United States. And I would have preferred not to be compelled to enter, at all, into a battle that seems to concern, as is often the case, the disqualification of works based upon the small-minded expressions, even the alleged outrages, of their author. But since the debate has been launched, since it is apparently making the front page of major American dailies and since we live in a world where soon it may be impossible to pronounce the name of the director of "A Bout de soufflé" ["Breathless"] without adding this question which is, obviously, a dreadful one: "Is Godard anti-semitic?", I have decided to present my account of the matter here.
Not that this account has, in and of itself, any particular authority. But it is characterized by two things I implore those who, starting tomorrow, will protest against the attribution of this award and against the honor thus accorded the controversial filmmaker to consider. It is the testimony of a man of whom the least one can say is that he has never compromised, not with public opinion but with the crime of anti-semitism; that he has never, no never, found excuses or attenuating circumstances for it, and that he has never hesitated, moreover, to recognize its face behind all of its masks and assumed names. And it is, most of all, the account of a writer that the happenstance of life has led to encounter Jean-Luc Godard four times in the last 25 years. In every instance, the occasion was a film project that dealt, precisely, with this question of ways, modern or not, of being Jewish. And the man in question, myself, quite naturally possesses both a singular experience and, inevitably, original elements of reflection concerning the very object of the present quarrel.
A year ago, when Antoine de Baecque's biography came out, I brought up episodes little known to Godard's biographers, in particular to de Baecque. I did so in a detailed text that was published in Le Point, and then here, in the Huffington Post, on April 8th, 2010, and which was initially inspired by a phrase Godard's other biographer, the American Joseph Brody, attributed to me which I sensed was becoming Exhibit #1 in the indictment of what would become the "Godard trial". Had I ever really said that Jean-Luc Godard was "an antisemite trying to cure himself?" If so, on what occasion? In what context? And what does one do when a little phrase you uttered, a word, perhaps just dinner table pleasantries or a joke, turns out to support the most serious accusation there could be? One offers his true feelings. One presents his innermost conviction, carefully weighing his words. That is, thus, what I did in this text, the conclusion of which was that Godard's rapport with the Jewish fact was, certainly, complex, contradictory, and ambiguous; that his support in the early 70s of the most extremist Palestinian points of view was obviously a problem; and that there are, in such private conversations recounted by the writer and film maker Alain Fleischer since then, some disturbing elements. But to use that to peremptorily declare that "Godard is anti-semitic" is not only to take the risk of calling a life's work before a tribunal where, I repeat, it has no place but also, concerning the point that is a problem, the name to give Godard's politics -- or not -- in short, concerning the corpus delicti, it amounts to jumping to conclusions, playing with words one should only use with the greatest of scruple and, in the final analysis, straying completely off the path.
There remained the documents. There remained the "packet of notes and documents" I said, in the text of April 8th, I had "kept over the years", attesting to these moments of my life and of Jean-Luc Godard's (and, where some were concerned, that of Claude Lanzmann as well) that were also the foundation of my analysis and of what I had to say. I limited myself, then, to indicating their existence but did not feel that actually making them public served any purpose. And I did so without much regret because, each of the four times, it was a question of films abandoned that I was not sure (and, moreover, am still not sure) it would have been worthwhile to drag out of the limbo where we had decided, among one another, to let them stay.
Today, I see things differently. Before the developing importance of this affair, before the accumulation of hearsay, opinions, or quotes taken out of context and consequently turned crazy with which men and women I often know and respect make do, before -- why not say so too? -- the invitation I sense, here and there (recently again, from de Baecque, in Rue 89), to stop using half-words and, in order to "definitively exonerate Godard" (or not), to publish the letters, notes, and preparatory documents of these film projects, thus producing the evidence of a case that, up until now, I have said too little or not enough about, I take on the responsibility, yes, after all, of offering all.
Here they are then, these snippets, drafts, these words. Here are these useless, dusty, forgotten letters that were no longer for me and, I imagine, for Godard, any more than the sad memory of endeavors we undertook with enthusiasm but that turned out to be still-born -- and that will, here, for an instant, come to life again and contribute, I hope, to an effort at clarification that must be put off no longer. Each one can form his own open from there on. It is up to everyone to judge, but as I did myself -- with the evidence henceforth at hand, and with probity. Read.
This post is the first in a series. The next installment will be published on 11/14.
The Department of Education acknowledged that anti-Semitic harassment at federally funded schools is violation of Title VI. Thus the anti-Semitism is equated to discrimination based on “race, color, or national origin.” The Education Department points that disciplining perpetrators might be considered as insufficient action by school and required steps to rectify might include publicly labeling such incidents as anti-Semitic, educate teachers, faculty, and students, “take prompt and effective steps reasonably calculated to end the harassment and prevent its recurrence.”
I'd like HP to take a notice of that decision.
1. Religious: Jews are strange and weird and therefore dangerous
2. Secular: Jews can never be really citizens of a nation because their loyalty is always to Jews first, they can't be loyal or honest in their dealing with gentiles.
3. Racial: Jews are racially evil people.
Anti-Zionism is negative anti-semitism for denying that the above exists and that Jews need a homeland. Historically speaking, I would say its as anti-semitic to be anti-zionist as it would be anti-kurd, anti-tibetan, and anti-Sikh to deny them homelands considering their history of being abused by a majority that didn't like them for similar reasons (religious, secular, and racial).
Those who claim anti-zionism is a positive defense of Palestinians ignores what it means to Jews and give no solutions to the Jewish problem. Do we leave them in the Middle East but take their country? Do you remove them? Do you give the Palestinians a homeland?
These three questions are at issue and its quite obvious that the first would be the anti-semitism of ignoring positive anti-semitism and the historical precedence of the discrimination of Jews. The second is a waste of time because it is tactically impossible, even if the richer Jews can move out what will happen to the African and Middle Eastern Jews? Without Israel, particularly the African Jews are going to face positive anti-semitism as they had for most of their history.
that's nonsesne
As a philosopher, could he first explain what "Antisemitism" means?
No.
Next...?
Israel is perceived as a powerful country supported by the more powerful countries in the West and her intent is to expand through settlements and potentially claiming territories in Jordan and Egypt, for instance, as her "Promised Land." The religious and cultural clash in the region is too complex, but my point is to express the air of anxiety and distress against Israel.
Sadly, all those countries in the region have a very strong fear and hatred toward Israel (just keep in mind not all are Muslims- i.e.,40% of Lebanese are Christians). Are they all anti-semitic? or do they have a right to fear Israel (not a right to kill- please don't misunderstand)?
None of this Arab-vs-settler stuff was even a twinkle in the eye of the British colonialists when real antisemitism was in play. How quickly it is all forgotten and trivialised to muscle in and silence criticism.
Respect yourself, no?
Anyone who has any sympathy for the Palestinians will be accused of antisemitism by zealous Zionists who DO have the sympathy from most of the western world because of the atrocities of the WWII holocaust. The logic being, how can a people who were so oppressed and persecuted turn around and do the same thing to another group of people?
Even Jews, living in Israel, who have organized peace movements have been accused of hatred toward themselves. Any public display with an emphasis on human rights abuses against Palestinians by the Israeli Military is seen as an act of treason. Israeli civilian casualties are mentioned, even though the Israeli Military has killed 5-times more Palestinian civilians than the Palestinian Military has killed Israeli civilians, the Palestinians are accused of "killing our children."
Pointing this out to anyone with Israeli sympathy will earn you the moniker "anti-Semite."
Israeli's don't embed their military inside civilian populations as do the Palestinians. You seem to ignore that.
Arabs have killed more Palestinians then Israelis have ... but that is never an issue. Jordan killed 10,000 Palestinians in 10 days .. that was not an issue. Lebanon's Army last year spent weeks shelling a Palestinian refugee camp killing scores of civilians - that was not an issue. Speaking of refugee camps, those camps in Lebanon make Gaza look like Beverly Hills - where are the Flotillas?
But should you dare defend Israel or the IDF - ie. much of what you state in you post is actually nonsense, without any evidence, and mostly the result of repeating a lie over and over again - you are accused of being a "zealous Zionist" - as if being a Zionist is a form of racism - another lie which has been a work in progress for decades.
Ionically its these very same people who while demonstrating their double standard and obsession with Israel, their demonization and distortion of words like Zionist, are the first to claim "Pointing this out to anyone with Israeli sympathy will earn you the moniker "anti-Semite."
OK then what are you if not anti Semitic?
Criticism is healthy - it is good for Israel (and good for Jordan and for Egypt). The only difference is that Israel has constant protection from having to engage in any genuine dialogue regarding contentious issues. That is bound to be a bad thing for the Israeli people - WHO wants to live surrounded by people who hate you and want you gone?
Eric Holder, the US Atty. General, summed it up well. He said we have to have the conversations on race. He said that many white people are afraid to engage in the conversation for fear of saying something inappropriate or being called a racist. He is right. We cannot be afraid to have critical conversations without having a label thrown out there.