The sad spectacle of a Jew using the Oscars to bash Israel - comment

My first reaction when I heard in one ear Monday morning that some Jewish Oscar winner publicly rejected his Jewishness was the same as it was when I listened to the chief rabbi threaten that if the state obligates yeshiva students to serve in the IDF, they will leave the country: who cares?

Just as the threat that yeshiva students would pack up and leave did not move me – if they want to go, let them leave – so too did Jonathan Glazer’s rejection of his Jewishness, which I thought I heard, not move me either.

Glazer would not be the first Jew in history to reject his Jewishness, for whatever reason, nor will he be the last. But Jewishness and Judaism will endure long after Glazer is gone and his movie forgotten.

Only a bit later did I see Glazer’s quote, and then became confused. Though he read from a pre-written text, meaning he had given these words some thought, it was unclear what the newly minted Oscar winner for a Holocaust-themed movie said.

Standing alongside the Jewish co-producers of his film, James Wilson and Len Blavatnik, Glazer said: “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 that has led to conflict for so many innocent people.”

The victims of October 7th

After being interrupted by applause, he continued: “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?”

Those comments, as Glazer knew would happen, attracted enormous media attention and caused an uproar. Suddenly, people were talking about the Jewish winner of an Oscar for Best International Feature for the film Zone of Interest.

And these words attracted attention even though it was not exactly clear what the man meant. Did he mean that he and his coproducers were rejecting their Jewishness, or were refuting that Jewishness and the Holocaust were hijacked by the occupation – but what does that even mean? The “occupation” hijacked the Holocaust? Huh? And what “occupation” has “led to conflict for so many innocent people?” Did he mean the one from 1967, or perhaps was he referring to the very establishment of Israel in 1948?

It was also unclear, and remains unclear, whether he was speaking in the name of Blavatnik, a Ukrainian-born Jewish billionaire who owns a controlling stake in Channel 13, donates to Birthright Israel, and a Chabad-run food bank in Kiryat Malachi. He spoke for Wilson, who has spoken similarly over the last few months.

Though Glazer’s words were ambiguous, and it was not clear precisely what it was he was refuting or rejecting, the bottom line was unmistakable: the director of a movie having to do with Nazis and Auschwitz came out squarely and very publicly against the Jewish state fighting back against Hamas, the newest incarnation of the Nazis, an organization that just five months ago murdered, raped, mutilated and kidnapped more than 1,400 Jews (Glazer’s people) and non-Jews. And for that comment, he was applauded in Hollywood; that part of the universe that antisemites always gripe is run by a Jewish cabal.

While my initial response was who cares – what does it matter? On second thought, it does matter because it is both sad and potentially damaging.

It is sad because it reflects a persistent pattern among our people where Jews themselves become numbered among the Jewish community’s greatest detractors. This isn’t new; Jewish history is replete with far more egregious examples. But even though history is ripe with precedents, it doesn’t make seeing real-time instances of this trend any less disheartening.

It is also sad because of the silence of the other Jews who took the stage at the Oscars (Steven Spielberg, for example) and said nothing in defense of Israel, on behalf of the hostages, or about the Israeli women raped by Hamas.

The war with Hamas has created a new term to describe those Jews who publicly slam Israel and always do so by prefacing their criticisms with the caveat, “As a Jew.” As if because they were born Jewish, they have enhanced credibility and greater moral authority to attack the Jewish state.

What Glazer’s statement showed has been evident too much over the last five months: while the “As a Jews” have no fear in speaking up loudly and very publicly – in fact, they bask in it – prominent “Just regular Jews” who support Israel are less willing to speak openly in support of Israel, apparently because of a fear of a backlash.

And why is this potentially dangerous? For two reasons. First, the Israel bashers out there will use the words of Jews against Israel as reinforcement for their anti-Israel and often antisemitic sentiments. “Don’t blame us for casting Israel in an evil light,” they say, “look at what some Jews themselves are saying.”

For instance, the caption to a clip of Glazer’s speech put online by Turkey’s state-run Anadolu news agency read: “Jonathan Glazer, of Jewish descent, condemns Israel’s war on Gaza during his Oscars speech.”

So if Glazer, of Jewish descent, can condemn Israel’s war on Gaza and say that Israel has “hijacked” the Holocaust, then who can accuse Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of antisemitism for comparing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Hitler?

It is also potentially dangerous because prominent Jews bashing Israel could sway people in the middle, who have not made up their minds about this conflict, that Israel is in the wrong. After all, they might reason, “Oscar-winning Jews are saying so themselves” – even if it is an Oscar-winning Jew they hadn’t heard of 10 minutes ago and whose German-speaking film they are unlikely to see.

One solution to this problem: Oscar-winning Jews saying the exact opposite. Unfortunately, however, they are not there, something Glazer’s speech depressingly highlighted.