'Zone of Interest' producer says he 'fundamentally disagrees' with Jonathan Glazer's Oscars speech on Israel-Hamas war

[Beastly Boy]

A “Zone of Interest” producer is pushing back on director Jonathan Glazer’s comments at the Oscars in which he condemned the war between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.

“The war and the continuation of the war is the responsibility of Hamas,” Danny Cohen, the executive producer of “Zone of Interest,” said in an interview on the episode of the “Unholy” podcast released Thursday.

Calling Hamas a “genocidal terrorist organization,” Cohen said, “I think the war is tragic and awful, and the loss of civilian life is awful, but I blame Hamas for that.”

While accepting the Academy Award for best international feature film on Sunday, Glazer spoke out about the conflict in Gaza.

--snip--

“I just fundamentally disagree with Jonathan on this,” Cohen said, while discussing Glazer’s remarks.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/zone-interest-producer-says-fundamentally-163617947.html

[Sky Jewels]

1. So dehumanization only concerns him when it's applied to Jewish/Israeli people.

He's not concerned about dehumanization of hundreds of thousands of innocent Gazans by Netanyahu/IDF.

How sad that he is selective about who he considers to be fully human.

[Beastly Boy]

2. How in the world would you reach this conclusion?

He is commenting on a specific instance. He fundamentally disagrees with the person who offered a public statement that doesn't assign any responsibility for the war to Hamas, and he is concerned with complete absence of this acknowledgement in Glazer's very public speech. He fundamentally disagrees with this position.

How can you possibly extrapolate from this what else Cohen is or is not concerned about? And what left field did the "fully human" stuff suddenly come out of?

[BannonsLiver]

5. It's sad you came to that ludicrous conclusion

[Ace Rothstein]

9. You just made that up, full cloth.

[sarisataka]

10. .

[Cha]

26. Danny Cohen is Exactly Correct!

“The war and the continuation of the war is the responsibility of Hamas,” Danny Cohen,

[NoRethugFriends]

29. A glorious pile of malarkey

[NYC2ATL]

31. Sadly, this seems to be the case for so many Israli's and rabid far rightwingers worldwide

Israel has destroyed their reputation beyond repair for at least a generation, so I hope they are happy w/themselves.

[Cha]

35. Oh yeah.. and what's the Butchers of HAMAS' Fucking "reputation"?

[NYC2ATL]

36. Whenever you find yourself comparing a government of a Western nation to a terrorist group

You KNOW you've lost the plot.

Carry on.

[Cha]

37. I'm not "comparing" anything .. The Distraction

Last edited Sat Mar 16, 2024, 07:34 PM - Edit history (1)

isn't working.

[Cha]

39. Still Not working.

[Cha]

44. I didn't lose.

[ZonkerHarris]

49. A lot of that going around nowadays

[madaboutharry]

51. Accusing Jews of only caring about other Jews and

of being clannish is a trope as old as time.
You do know that, don’t you?

[Sky Jewels]

55. Lol.

This guy disagreed with his colleague, who expressed concern for Gazans, as well as Israeli victims. He is the one who is restricting his sympathies. He is one person. He is not "the entire Jewish people." This kind of attempt to silence people is such disingenuous bullshit, and you know it.

[PCIntern]

3. So my rhetorical question is:

What’s going to happen when Hamas does it again? And they certainly will.

“Restraint” right?

Just like we were restrained after Pearl Harbor.

But…but…it’s the Jews, so it’s “different”

Nope. Never again.

[BannonsLiver]

6. Israel will defend itself

Of course, it’s been established these last 5 months that a good deal of people on the forum don’t believe Israel has that right.

[PCIntern]

8. Yes...well it's a good thing that

Israel's fate isn’t ruled by American committees of typists.

[0rganism]

11. There is a big difference, and it's not "Jews" per se

The difference is, at the time of WW2, Japan had a government capable of acting on behalf of its people, at least nominally. The people of Gaza have no government; at best, they've been ruled by bandits and vengeful fanatics completely unconcerned with the interests of the people they put in harm's way. Even if 95% of Gazans would honestly support an unconditional surrender there is no one among them who could credibly proffer such an agreement and Israelis would be fools to expect Hamas et al to abide by its terms.

This is a huge messy problem. There are millions of people (and yes, they remain people as much as you or I) stuck in Gaza trying to survive under some extremely difficult conditions. Coming up with a strategy that protects Israel and its citizens while avoiding actions that resemble ethnic cleansing has proven quite difficult.

Right now, among other things, Israel has a major PR problem largely due to that resemblance. The PR problem is having a significant effect here in America, where it threatens a fragile coalition needed to maintain democracy.

The bombing of Pearl Harbor brought Americans together against a common threat. The bombing of Gaza threatens to tear us apart. So yes, there's a significant difference and it deserves to be discussed rather than dismissed.

[Ping Tung]

4. Cohen "....I blame Hamas for that."

I blame the killers on both sides. The ones who participate in the war crimes.

No cause justifies the deaths of innocent people. Albert Camus

[TheKentuckian]

13. This simply demands "one side" absorb all of the deaths of the innocents

Fucking poppycock.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. Strawman (nt)

[TheKentuckian]

73. In what way? Totally on topic.

[muriel_volestrangler]

78. A strawman is not something "off topic"; it's claiming something has happened when it hasn't

such as "demands "one side" absorb all of the deaths of the innocents"., when the post you replied to actually said "I blame the killers on both sides. The ones who participate in the war crimes".

[Ping Tung]

20. Does you mean hat no dead Palistinians are innocents?

Are all the dead Palestinians in Gaza terrorists? No one murdered them?

I certainly believe that the Israeli civilians killed by Hamas murderers were innocents. Or is that also "poppycock"?

[TheKentuckian]

45. Some dead Palestinians are innocents.

Some of the dead are almost certainly not terrorists.

Few or none were murdered.

Murder is a crime of intent.

Many have been killed though because the terrorists are wilfully using them as shields.
Absorbing attacks because of this practice is not going to fly.

Israel's duty is to protect and defend its people, not to sacrifice them to minimize enemy casualties.

[Ping Tung]

50. Collateral damage? Unfortunate circumstances?

Burn the village down to save it?

Echoes of other wars. Hiroshima? Nagasaki? Rotterdam? The London Blitz? My Lai? Agent Orange?

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would fully suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action! It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.
Albert Einstein

[TheKentuckian]

69. Obviously collateral damage.

The enemy can only be defeated where they are not where we would wish they are.

[Ping Tung]

70. Killing the many to kill the few?

When I was in the marines, the saying was "Sacrifice the few to save the many" Which was fine,,..as long as you weren't part of the few.

[TheKentuckian]

72. The attacks must be stopped. Unconditional surrender ends wars.

[Ping Tung]

76. I'm with you on the attacks must be stopped. But I doubt that too many

Israelis or Palestinians will willing to surrender unconditionally.

All wars end. At some point both sides will have to start negotiating a realistic peace.

Unfortunately, before that occurs there will be a lot of corpses of civilians who won't give a damn about who "wins".

[Beastly Boy]

18. Do you blame both sides for the attack on the Israeli civilians that started the war?

Because that's what Cohen is referring to.

[elocs]

32. When Israel had Intel of a potential attack a year in advance but dismissed it as big talk,

then they deserve blame for ignoring it as not being prepared for an attack on a Jewish holy day, like that's never happened before. Those Israeli settlers had been promised they would be protected by the IDF and then when attacked they wondered where the hell the help was.
But Gaza Palestinians were largely innocent of any attack yet they are the ones primarily paying the price for the attack, particularly the women, the children, the babies. It's quite the stretch to justify those deaths as just collateral damage by Israel who has lost the moral high ground here in the eyes of the world, protected by the U.S. veto power at the U.N.

[Beastly Boy]

34. I asked you whether you blame both sudes for the Hamas attacks on the Israeli civilians that started the war.

Don't deflect.

[Ping Tung]

40. I blame the killers on both sides for the deaths or maiming they do.

The ones who pull the lanyards, who pull the triggers, drop the bombs on command. The ones who willingly do the dirty work of the bosses by "just following orders".

[Beastly Boy]

41. Next question: identify the killers on both sides who attacked Israeli civilians that started the war.

Because this is what Cohen is talking about.

And don't deflect into something Cohen wasn't talking about.

[Cha]

28. If HAMAS hadn't ATTACKED Israel on Oct 7.. None of this would be Happening!

[betsuni]

7. K&R

[Behind the Aegis]

12. Glazer's remarks were disgusting, disappointing, but oh so fucking predictable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. He condemned the Hamas attack

You call that "disgusting"? Or is it that you can't contemplate that 30,000 dead is disproportionate, and a surefire way of getting Israel hated for another generation who lose so many relatives?

[Behind the Aegis]

16. Strawman (nt)

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. I asked you a question. So it's not a "strawman".

Here's another question: did you know anything about Glazer's political opinions before the Oscars speech? It not, why was this "fucking predictable"?

[Behind the Aegis]

19. Questions can be a Strawman. As well as the "loaded question" and the "accusatory question".

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. What were you calling "disgusting"? And, again, why was it "predictable"? How well did you know Glazer? (nt)

[Behind the Aegis]

22. His need to make that speech. Conflating. We had breakfast earlier.

[muriel_volestrangler]

23. What did he say at breakfast?

Or was "oh so fucking predictable" just that you expect most Jewish people to make a speech like that? If you don't know about his politics, you must be predicting his views based on "British Jew".

[Behind the Aegis]

24. I never kiss and tell.

[muriel_volestrangler]

25. Yeah, so it's just that you know that most Jews outside Israel think the Israeli attack has gone too far

such as, for instance, Chuck Schumer. And you are thus able to predict their views on Gaza.

[Behind the Aegis]

27. What color am I thinking of now?

I guess one doesn't have to know someone personally to know what they are thinking, right?

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. You said you were able to know what Glazer was thinking before he said anything

and so you were predicting that he'd condemn both the Hamas attack and the Netanyahu response. What did you know about him? That's he's a British Jew? A film director? Do you usually predict such people have "disgusting" views?

Ask yourself: if the predictable view of a liberal Jew is to condemn both Hamas and Netanyahu, then maybe it's a view worth taking? And so, not "disgusting".

[TheKentuckian]

46. Disproportionate to what objective? Hamas is still there

so insufficient action has been taken to eliminate them thus far.

That is the only math that matters.

Attackers that want peace are free to surrender unconditionally and only have themselves to blame for the war they allowed no alternative to.

[Cha]

33. TY and Danny Cohen.. I agree with his statements.

Calling Hamas a “genocidal terrorist organization,” Cohen said, “I think the war is tragic and awful, and the loss of civilian life is awful, but I blame Hamas for that.

[Ping Tung]

42. "the loss of civilian life is awful.."

The 'eye for an eye" method isn't working and the civilians continue to die at the hands of war criminals...on both sides.

[Cha]

43. None of this wold be Happening without the Fucking Butchers

of HAMAS Sneak Sadistic Attack on Oct 7.

[Celerity]

54. It was going on long before Hamas (who Netanyahu propped up to play 'divide et impera' games) existed.

Example of RW ultra Zionist historical terrorism, committed by the Jewish terrorist gang, Irgun, who were led by the terrorist Menachem Begin, who went on to become Israeli PM and to found the Likud Party (whose founding slogan was, btw, 'Between the sea and the Jordan there will only be Israeli sovereignty') now run by Netanyahu:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing

The British administrative headquarters for Mandatory Palestine, housed in the southern wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, were bombed in a terrorist attack on July 22, 1946, by the militant right-wing Zionist underground organization Irgun during the Jewish insurgency. 91 people of various nationalities were killed, including Arabs, Britons and Jews, and 46 were injured.

snip

[Mosby]

58. And before that:

The Hebron massacre was the killing of sixty-seven or sixty-nine Jews on 24 August 1929 in Hebron, then part of Mandatory Palestine, by Arabs incited to violence by rumors that Jews were planning to seize control of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.[1] The event also left scores seriously wounded or maimed. Jewish homes were pillaged and synagogues were ransacked. Some of the 435 Jews in Hebron who survived were hidden by local Arab families,[2] although the extent of this phenomenon is debated.[3] Soon after, all Hebron's Jews were evacuated by the British authorities.[4] Many returned in 1931, but almost all were evacuated at the outbreak of the 1936–39 Arab revolt in Palestine. The massacre formed part of the 1929 Palestine riots, in which a total of 133 Jews and 110 Arabs were killed, the majority of the latter by British police and military,[5] and brought the centuries-old Jewish presence in Hebron to an end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre

[Celerity]

65. Tit for tat, back & forth, w/ Israel doing the vast amount of the killing & land taking over the sweep of last century.

[TheKentuckian]

47. If you have a better methodology for eliminating the threat

then please share.

Absorbing terrorist attacks did not work, now it is time to surrender once and for all.

[Ping Tung]

52. I think an immediate cease fire should be called and arbitrators

should be called to find a permanent solution to the problems between Palestine and Israel. Just killing each other hasn't worked in the middle east.

How about a permanent 2 state agreement. Or a permanent armistice?
Hell, even the Irish and Brits and Northern Ireland pulled it off after 700 years of murdering each other.

[TheKentuckian]

71. A don't see the connection between a ceasefire and eliminating Hamas

In fact, it is a victory for them that strengthens their hand and rewards terrorism.

Peace starts with their unconditional surrender.

[Ping Tung]

77. It's pretty hard to negotiate a peace and settlement while shooting at each other.

[Mosby]

57. What "eye for an eye" method?

In Islam that is taken literally. That isn't the case in Judaism. You probably should avoid commenting on theology you don't understand.

[Ping Tung]

59. Hamas seems to be using the eye-for-eye method.

So does the IDF.

It doesn't work.

[Ping Tung]

60. I took your advice and looked up eye for an eye.

"And a man who injures his countryman – as he has done, so it shall be done to him [namely,] fracture under/for fracture, eye under/for eye, tooth under/for tooth. Just as another person has received injury from him, so it will be given to him." (Lev. 24:19–21).

“We ordained therein for them ‘life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal. But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for him.”

The Holy Quran [5:45]

[Mosby]

61. Jews interpret and analyze the Torah for meanings.

The pithy, somewhat snarky quote, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” is usually attributed to Indian independence leader, Mahatma Gandhi, although there’s no evidence he ever said it.

But that doesn’t take away from the question.

A literal translation of the biblical verse – which is talking about a fight between two people – is, “…an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot…”

That’s pretty extreme. It seems to be saying that punishment is punitive and exacting: poke out an eye, chop off a hand, throw body parts to the wind, wade knee deep in carnage and gore, and run society like a B-grade slasher movie; which would be unjust, horrible, and gross.

But that isn’t what the bible is saying. Rather, it’s speaking of compensatory, or monetary damages. The more accurate way to read the verse is, “In place of an eye, pay the value of an eye; in place of a tooth, pay the value of a tooth, and so on.

....

That may also explain why the bible uses such strong language. If you’re real, you’ll feel empathy for the person you wronged. You’ll feel his pain – as if you lost a limb yourself – find a way to be a continuous help to him, and most importantly, examine your behavior and actions. With that type of introspection, you’ll make the types of changes necessary in order to not cause that type of damage to someone else in the future.

https://aish.com/what-is-the-meaning-of-an-eye-for-an-eye/

[Ping Tung]

62. If that's the case the Qu'ran and Bible say the same thing.

But, I'm referring to the killing of civilians by Hamas and the IDF being used as retaliation.

Speaking of religious beliefs, I'm a lot closer to Gandhi's beliefs than any of the three Abrahamic religions.

What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy? Gandhi

[Mosby]

63. Ghandi was an antisemite who evinced the same lame colonial, imperial view as british amtisemites

In 1947, interviewed by Louis Fischer, author of The Life of Mahatma Gandhi, Gandhi said: “Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves in the sea from cliffs.... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany.... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.

Want to explain that bullshit?


November of 1938:

But my sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood? Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs.... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home.

The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred....

Let the Jews who claim to be the chosen race prove their title by choosing the way of non-violence for vindicating their position on earth. Every country is their home, including Palestine, not by aggression, but by loving service.

Basically the guy was an antisemitic idiot who doesn't even know his history. He represents everything wrong with pacifism plus the Russian Marxist lies about Israel and Judaism.

[Ping Tung]

64. Russian Marxist lies?

Karl Marx was a Jew. As was Einstein who condemned Zionism which is just another type of nationalism.

I'm a pacifist. I refuse to kill people on the command of politicians or priests or or other sadists who do give those orders.

Gandhi was against oppression and violence against any people including Jews, Muslims, Christians, for any reason.

I find the killing of civilians for any cause to be murder. And, to excuse it to be equally barbarous.

[Mosby]

67. Einstein was a staunch Zionist, even befor WWII.

1923:

I consider this the greatest day of my life. Hitherto I have always found something to regret in the Jewish soul, and that is the forgetfulness of its own people -- forgetfulness of its being, almost. Today I have been made happy by the sight of the Jewish people learning to recognize themselves and to make themselves recognized as a force in the world. This is a great age, the age of liberation of the Jewish soul, and it has been accomplished through the Zionist movement, so that no one in the world will be able to destroy it.

1931:

Through the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine, the Jewish people will again be in a position to bring its creative abilities into full play without hindrance. Through the Jewish University and similar institutions the Jewish people will not only help forward its own national renaissance, but will enrich its moral culture and knowledge, and will once again, as it was centuries ago, be guided into better ways of life than those which are inevitably imposed on it in present conditions.

The rebuilding of Palestine is for us Jews not a mere matter of charity or emigration: it is a problem of paramount importance for the Jewish people. Palestine is first and foremost not a refuge for East European Jews, but the incarnation of a reawakening sense of national solidarity. But is it opportune to revive and to strengthen this sense of solidarity? To that question I must reply with an unqualified affirmative, not only because that answer expresses my instinctive feeling but also, I believe, on rational grounds.

https://zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_zionism.htm

Pacifism is parasitic, in that others are willing to die to protect your beliefs. That applies to Ghandi, the Amish etc.

[Ping Tung]

68. I'm not willing for anyone to die for anyone's beliefs.

Or, kill for anyone's beliefs.
Are you willing to kill someone you don't know because someone tells you to? How about kids, civilians, bystanders?

A. Einstein,
112, Mercer Street
Princeton,
New Jersey, U.S.A.

January 21, 1946

Mr. Henry J. Factor
P.O.B. 1273
Indianopolis [sic], Indiana

Dear Sir:

I have served as witness before the Anglo-American Inquriy [sic] Commission on Palestine for the sole purpose to act in favor of our just cause. But it is, of course, impossible to prevent distortion by the press. I am in favor of Palestine being developed as a Jewish Homeland but not as a separate State. It seems to me a matter for simple common sense that we cannot ask to be given the political rule over Palestine where two thirds of the population are not Jewish. What we can and should ask is a secured bi-national status in Palestine with free immigration. If we ask more we are damaging our own cause and it is difficult for me to grasp that our Zionists are taking such an intransigent position which can only impair our cause.

Very truly yours,
A. Einstein [in autograph]
Albert Einstein.

[TheKentuckian]

74. You are free to have a personal suicide pact all you want

but don't expect it of others.

There is no third path when presented with fight or die if there is nowhere to run or hide.

Without sufferance a pacifist has no path to continuing the beliefs, it is an evolutionary dead end concept other than as a free rider or happenstance.

Pacifism can be a useful tactic but it only has any traction if there are some "better angels" with significant influence to call upon.

Against the intractable it can only result in death or subjugation at the whim of the aggressor.

Live by the sword, die by the sword may be real but just as true is that those without swords can still be felled by them and I wouldn't bet much on the latter happening less.

[Ping Tung]

75. You seem to be "intractable" and not a "better angel".

You whole post is a helluva good argument for pacifism and non violence.

Where are the Palestinians to "run and hide" when the Israeli aggressors offer them only subjection or death? Are they only left with "fight or die" option?

[maxsolomon]

48. I don't disagree with Glazer. I thought it was a concise, nuanced speech.

All our choices were made to reflect and confront us in the present — not to say, “Look what they did then,” rather, “Look what we do now.” 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 the... 7th in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza, all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist? Aleksandra Bystroń-Kołodziejczyk, the girl who glows in the film, as she did in life, chose to. I dedicate this to her memory and her resistance. Thank you.

He's against his Jewishness being hijacked by an Occupation (not just the Gaza incursion).
He's against the Holocaust being hijacked by an Occupation (not just the Gaza incursion).
He's against Dehumanization.
He's against the Dehumanization that led to October the 7th.
He's against the Dehumanization occurring in the Gaza incursion.

It was a speech that resonated with my own mixed feelings on I/P and Israel's strategy in Gaza, but the film itself was made long before 10/7. The "Occupation" isn't simply this current war.

[Beastly Boy]

53. It was very pretentious of him to claim his Jewishness to be hijacked.

Especially considering his choice of venue for his claim.

"Being hijacked by occupation" is a nonsensical phrase. Is the occupation, however you define it, being conducted in the name of his Jewishness? Or in the name of the Holocaust? Seriously?

He did himself too much honor to claim that his Jewishness suffered an offense. He evoked memory of the Holocaust completely out of any context and sense of proportion.

And, him speaking of dehumanization while Jewish, his absence of any concern of his Jewishness suffering any offense as it is being dehumanized by an unprecedented wave of global antisemitism was blazingly conspicuous.

He chose to express his professed principles pretty selectively. When he flaunts his Jewishness and ignores mine, I find it offensive.

[maxsolomon]

56. Curious if you've seen the film.

I found it very powerful and haunting, and even if I don't agree with everything he said at the Oscars, dehumanization is a very apropos subject for our era.

Not just in Gaza, but Sudan, Ukraine, America...

[Elessar Zappa]

66. Glazer's speech was ridiculous.

I agree with Cohen.