A few days ago, I wrote a piece for the Times of Israel Blogs (which was cross-posted on this site) about Jonathan Glazer's controversial acceptance speech at the Oscars. A reader on this site took me to task for misinterpreting a critical line in the speech-which I highlighted. It was this:
"Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation......."
I also re-emphasized the point here:
"To think that at this moment in time, when anti-Semitism is now running rampant worldwide, largely thanks to the Palestinian propaganda machine, people can stand up in public and "refute their Jewishness" and imply there is a moral equivalency between Hamas' actions on October 7 and the Israeli military response is sickening to this non-Jew."
Most observers have agreed that Glazer's speech was confusing in its wording. I am willing to concede that I probably erred in my own interpretation of this line. My interpretation was that Glazer was refuting his Jewishness in his criticism of Israel's "occupation". In fairness, I feel I should give Glazer the benefit of the doubt and concede that what he actually meant was that his Jewishness and the Holocaust were being hijacked by the Israeli occupation of Gaza and/or the West Bank. That is my error, and I take responsibility for it. I have also submitted my correction to the Times of Israel Blogs.
That being said, my overall criticism of Glazer (and others) who refuse to support Israel's response to October 7 stands.
No comments:
Post a Comment