Tel-Chai Nation

Actress Noa Tishby wrote a condemnation of the bigoted performers and directors now dominating the Academy Awards, which has been very irrelevant as a form of art for some time now:

Israeli producer and actress Noa Tishby, recognized as a prominent pro-Israel voice in the U.S. media, took to social media to criticize a gesture of support for the Palestinians made by Hollywood stars at the Academy Awards' Oscar ceremony on Sunday night. Tishby criticized these stars, many who were nominated for and also won Oscar statuettes, for promoting what she called a one-sided agenda regarding the war against the terrorist organization Hamas in Gaza.

"Tonight’s Oscars was a subtle and overt display of Jew-hatred," Tishby asserted.

Several Hollywood celebrities, including Billie Eilish, her brother Finneas, Mark Ruffalo, Ava DuVernay, Ramy Youssef, and Quannah Chasinghorse, wore red pins distributed by the group Artists4Ceasefire. Youssef explained that the pin represents "justice for the Palestinian people," and added: "This is a universal message of 'just stop killing children.'"

Tishby noted the absence of yellow pins, representing the hostages kidnapped by Hamas on October 7. "And that’s the point: if you’re calling for a ceasefire without calling for the release of the hostages, you are promoting Hamas’s agenda by questioning Israel's right to self-defense," Tishby said in an X post.

Tishby further commented on Hamas's brutal attack on Israel on the morning of October 7.

"It was Hamas who barbarically attacked Israel, breaking the cease-fire on October 7th. Since then, Hamas has consistently rejected numerous cease-fire proposals. Hamas is not interested in a cease-fire, it is interested in murdering Jews and sacrificing Palestinians. If these artists cared so much about a cease-fire, they’d be applying pressure on Hamas rather than attacking Israel," she said.

She concluded her post by suggesting that the actions of these celebrities could be interpreted as "at its mildest, this is subconscious antisemitism; at its worst, deliberate attacks against Jews."

Easily the worst thing about director Jonathan Glazer is that he's the product of what's doubtless a whole cottage industry dedicated to turning out self-hating Jews, and his ethnic background is likely one of the reasons why nobody challenged him within the ceremony proper. Even so, the presence of only so many anti-Israelists at the Oscars certainly speaks volumes, in contrast to the time when Vanessa Redgrave pulled similar acts in the late 1970s, and was rebutted by writer Paddy Chayevsky. Today, regrettably, there's almost nobody like him left, and the Oscars themselves ceased to be relevant in the past decade. This whole scene Glazer led to also demonstrates why.

Update: here's more on what the executive producer of the film, Danny Cohen, had to say following the repulsive speech by Glazer, which took place without the producers' approval (via Breitbart):

Speaking in response on the Unholy podcast hosted by Yonit Levi of Israel’s Channel 12 News and Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian, Cohen, former Director Of BBC TV, said he believed it was important to note Glazer’s speech “upset a lot of people.”

“A lot of people feel upset and angry about it. And I understand that anger frankly,” Cohen said.

“A lot of people in the Jewish community who contacted me felt it was a remarkable and very important film. And tells the story of the Holocaust and forms an important piece of Holocaust education. And I think they’ve been upset by the sense they feel that has been mixed up with what’s going on now. Whether that was Jonathan’s intention or not.”

Cohen added: “I just fundamentally disagree with Jonathan on this. The war and the continuation of the war is the responsibility of Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization, which continues to hold and abuse the hostages, which doesn’t use its tunnels to protect the innocent civilians of Gaza but uses it to hide themselves and allow Palestinians to die. I think the war is tragic and awful, and the loss of civilian life is awful, but I blame Hamas for that.”

When Freedland and Levi asked Cohen whether Glazer had informed him of his plans for the speech, he said no. The speech had been crafted, he understood, by Glazer and his longtime producer, James Wilson. Glazer and Wilson have yet to speak publicly about the discussion surrounding the speech.

Cohen concluded by saying The Zone Of Interest was one of the “most remarkable films in decades.” But he believed Glazer’s speech had become a “huge distraction” that overshadowed an “extraordinary triumph of filmmaking.”

Obviously, not many are going to want to view it now, as Glazer's speech casts a whole cloud over the production, and even if one can separate art from artist, it's still very embarrassing. And what are the chances we'll be seeing movies focused on the issue of Islamic terrorism coming from Hollywood? Next to nothing. Similarly, even pro-Israeli movies have been banned from development in an industry that's far too focused on commoditization.

Update 2: while we're on the topic, it's to be hoped Cohen's aware that even the PLO has long been involved in evils similar to the Hamas.

Update 3: Lazlo Nemes, the director of Son of Saul, also feels Glazer should've kept quiet.

Update 4: documentarian Richard Trank explains why Glazer's speech was so repulsive, and so does James Inverne.

Labels: anti-americanism, anti-semitism, dhimmitude, islam, Israel, jihad, military, misogyny, Moonbattery, political corruption, racism, sexual violence, showbiz, United States, war on terror