ewish people and the defensive war that Israel is waging in response to the October 7th attacks carried out by Hamas.”
It's so badly expressed. Whatever he was trying to say, "refute" doesn't work. "Refute their Jewishness"? What does that mean? Deny their Jewishness? Withdraw their Jewishness? I suppose it's something like: object (in strong terms) to the support their Jewishness implies to the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation etc. etc… But then, what occupation? Gaza, now? Or the whole Israel project? And in what way is the Holocaust being hijacked? By whom? Again it's unclear, but the implication has to be: Israel – the state of Israel. Whereas from any sane perspective, surely, the only way the Holocaust is being hijacked at the moment is the constant obscene Free Palestine insistence that Israel is now carrying out its own Holocaust, its own genocide, against the Palestinians.
But Glazer chose not to go that way.
It's hard to disagree with Nicole Lampert: he couldn't resist playing the good Jew in front of the Hollywood crowd:
I understand why he would want to perhaps use this moment of success to talk about war. I empathise with why he would want to point out how each side in every war dehumanises the other. But by linking the Holocaust and Gaza he has trampled on the six million dead and the particular pernicious way in which they were slaughtered.
And by doing it As A Jew he wins double plaudits from Jew haters while leaving the rest of us – already labouring under a tsunami of antisemitism – feeling like we have been punched in the stomach. Betrayal is so much harder when it is one of your own. It really hurts.
