Shooting and Lying: Useful Zionism, Useless Film


16 Flares Twitter 0 Facebook 16 16 Flares ×
Print pagePDF pageEmail page

[The former Israeli soldier] talked slowly about his time in Gaza. He spoke about 20 Arab teenagers filled with ecstasy tablets and sent running towards the base he’d patrolled. Each strapped with a bomb and carrying a hand-held detonator.

The pills in their bloodstream meant they felt no pain. Only a headshot would take them down.

It sounds like a setpiece from a moronic action movie but it’s not to be found in either screen fiction or the ‘experimental’ film Forty Shades of Grey, Nicky Larkin‘s ostensible study of Israel-Palestine. Larkin related this nonsensical anecdote in the first of his columns in Ireland’s most popular Sunday paper, the Sunday Independent, March 11, 2012. Raymond Deane of the Ireland Palestine Solidarity Campaign (IPSC) did what he could to restore sense, but by the time of his third and most unstable piece, Larkin had bizarrely contrived of the IPSC, and Deane in particular, his nemeses. Drawing on a more familiar toolbox of imagery, Larkin follows the ridiculous with stock exploitation: ‘I began to experience the sense of isolation Israelis feel. An isolation that began in the ghettos of Europe and ended in Auschwitz.’ If the ecstasy-filled-terror-teens incident ever occurred, it too was certainly isolated, and unheard of till Larkin began his remarkably hostile publicity campaign for his tough sell documentary.

It must be hard working for Israel’s Foreign Ministry nowadays.  The boss is more like a Boss of Bosses, a borderline fascist ex-bouncer plagued by corruption allegations, and the job of the diplomatic corps seems to consist of two things: dealing with the blowback of PR crises arising from the latest military outrage – invariably by blaming the victims – and providing diplomatic cover for the state’s ever less palatable commitment to ethnic (‘white‘) ascendancy. Many countries have issues with race relations, discriminative or repressive policies, but in First World terms the Israelis are well on their own in their ruthless demographic control coupled with the state’s insatiable hunger for its immediate neighbors’ land and resources. Such odious practices have become standard, and so savagely pronounced in the Palestinian Occupied Territories that varying degrees of (scarcely enforced) international condemnation are near constant.

Tough positions to defend, yet there are places where public support for Israel’s policies remains high, most obviously North America. The U.S. and Canada have relatively significant Jewish populations traditionally reflexive in their support for Israel, though that is slowly but certainly evolving. Israel’s notorious Washington lobby, namely AIPAC – influential on a par with Big Oil, Big Pharma, or the National Rifle Association – is deeply entrenched in Middle East policy-making, backed by a fervent Christian Zionist community deeply committed to Israel as their Biblically-sanctioned theme park of the incoming apocalypse. Some think they could be vaguely right, of course, but for more frightening, less supernatural reasons.

Such deep, unqualified popular support for Israel isn’t quite the norm in most other parts of the world, nor is the sheer volume of Zionist activism seen in America (though a serious lobby emerged in the UK during the Blair years.) And Ireland is a good example of a country whose government maintains diplomatic relations with Israel but whose people are broadly cognizant of Israel’s crimes, though with precious little help from dominant media. While European citizenry are markedly more critical of Israel’s policies than Americans, the Irish have particularly good historical grounds for questioning a country practicing ethnic disparity as a matter of course. Centuries of the British boot on their throat, resulting in the near-complete erosion of Ireland’s Gaelic culture, and a constant reminder of that imperial legacy remaining to this day in the north of the island, can do that. There are some strong sympathies in Ireland, north and south, for Palestine, feelings only stirred by actions such as the recent spate of hunger strikes undertaken by numerous Palestinians held in protest of Israel’s notorious indefinite detention laws.  After all, Bobby Sands and nine others died doing essentially the same thing under Thatcher’s government in the 1980s.

So, the Zionist state has its work cut out in Ireland. But it does have allies willing to hasbarize, from various corners, including artist/documentarian Larkin. Armed with a grant from the Arts Council, Larkin went to Israel, he says, to create a ‘pro-Palestinian’ film, his interest, he says, spurred by Israel’s monstrous Operation Cast Lead. He claims he ‘was so angered’ that he ‘posed in the striped scarf of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation for an art show catalogue.’ A touching story, similar to that of many who’d watched what happened in Gaza, though dismissively identifying the Arab cultural symbol, the keffiyeh, as a ‘PLO scarf’ indicates the level, nay shade, of Larkin’s understanding of Israel-Palestine.

More often than not, Larkin gets his facts a little crossed up. In one of his op-eds he recounts as fact how

Dublin city council allowed a day-long enactment of mock executions of “Israelis” by “Palestinians” on our main shopping thoroughfare, organized by the [IPSC].

The IPSC must have noticed the mix-up mid-performance, giving Larkin two ways of portraying their agitprop abuses. Elsewhere Larkin deplores how the Irish

[R]ecently tolerated the day-long enactment of mock executions of “Palestinians” by “Israelis” on O’Connell Street in Dublin.

Neither event ever happened, but reality’s irrelevant to Ireland’s bargain basement Alan Dershowitz. Here, one can feel Larkin’s blood curdle:

I interviewed Hind Khoury, a former Palestinian government member, she sat forward angrily in her chair as she refused to condemn the actions of the suicide bombers. She was all aggression.

Brace yourself for the offending clip (which appears only partially in the film.)

Shocking stuff, that aggressive leaning. No wonder he threw his ‘PLO scarf’ in the bin and implores readers to do likewise. Though it’s curious it took Larkin, having witnessed such even-handed horrors in Ireland, a trip to Israel to find there’s two sides to this well-established tale. And if only his visual work showed such flair, let alone such gall, as his alternating recollections. One almost wishes his documentary would too but, alas, FSoG fails to soar to such heights as propaganda, and merely limps insufferably along, making 83 minutes seem like three hours. Maybe the intention is shrewder than Larkin seems able: to make Israel-Palestine seem like an excruciatingly dull non-issue.

Larkin complains effusively about the Irish being ‘anti-Israel’ yet writes this in the Sunday edition of a leading-circulation rightist paper that’s generally ‘pro’-Israel (that is, pro-Israel’s lawlessness) and, since his first of three pieces so far, has featured two others opining in his defense, though one managed to get his name wrong. Larkin’s more recently been doing the rounds where he and his newfound passion will feel even more at home, being interviewed by Michael Coren on the Sun News Network, a kind of Canadian Fox News (FSoG‘s been screening in Canada, and Coren was on a roll that day).

Like a parody of St. Paul on the road to Damascus, something happened to Larkin during his fact-finding pilgrimage to the Holy Land – or since, perhaps in post-production when his film’s poverty of insight became apparent. Larkin swears up and down that FSoG is his attempt at providing a fair and unbiased reading of the situation in Israel-Palestine, and does this in his articles decrying up and down the Palestinian cause and those who speak up about it. FSoG is, he thinks, both ‘experimental’ – another basis, according to the Arts Council, on which it was funded – and politically heavyweight, but its experiments are one (echoing dialogue samples – basically this for protracted sections) and its politics far too cursory for activists of any stripe, or anyone else either. If FSoG isn’t intended for general audiences, and it probably won’t be picked up for wide distribution, then Larkin’s series of scurrilous, self-aggrandizing plugs are all the more suspect.

FSoG‘s supposed artiness neither compliments nor diverts attention from what is nothing more than a partial summary of Israel-Palestine’s barest bones, with other stuff thrown in for good measure. It’s poorly – an unfocused, desperately uneven hodgepodge – and lazily – inexcusable audio glitches, textural flickers suggesting a camera on auto-settings, uniformly prosaic interviews – executed. The shallow range of talking heads, mostly Israeli vox pops in bars and cafés, all go unidentified. The themes predictably vary from the Israeli and back to the Palestinian point of view, but then, abruptly and without foreshadow, the issue of Israel’s imperiled black immigrants is dropped in. This final segment explores – with hitherto unseen, albeit momentary, incisiveness – the extent of Israeli racism against African refugees as much as the cruelty of their Bedouin traffickers/captors.

In Larkin’s viral promotion of FSoG he sees fit to entitle an extract on this theme ‘Bedouin Rape Camps‘ – a term exclusive to Larkin’s promotion of FSoG and indicative of the tabloid mentality lurking beneath his arty facade. The issue of Sudanese refugees and their well-being is salient and topical, but its sudden prominence in the final twitches of FSoG is confusing. If FSoG is, as professed with typical caricature, about Israel-Palestine, then the matter of African migrants, Sinai Bedouins, and even Israeli anti-African racism is, while not irrelevant, somewhat secondary. Yet Larkin breezily skims his way through these disparate topics, throwing darts at the wall of his Israel-Palestine film that’s actually his Mostly-Israel film. Of the 70ish interview segments, over 40 are Israeli, less than 25 Palestinian, and the remainder African or otherwise concerned.

On Israel-Palestine he taps into the mentality of the ‘normal’ Israeli, but the danger is that viewers might perceive these anonymous (until a list of names scrolls by in the credits) Israelis as authoritative, and their propagandized delusions as well-informed commentary. What disturbs, as ever, about the Israeli interviewees is how cool they seem and surely are, one-to-one, yet how profoundly certain they are of a besieged, basically innocent Israel, with Jews, their Jewish-ness, hated irrationally by their benighted Muslim neighbors. Larkin makes no interjection, documenting their internalized hysteria uninterrupted, and it’s from these decontextualized interviewees that a propagandistic aspect could be discerned. There are few other voices in contrast, but one of the few deeper insights still isn’t a groundbreaking one: Palestinian-American businessman Sam Bahour on the ‘awkward’ (and, in fairness, still barely acknowledgeable in the mainstream) truth of the relationship between U.S. politics and Israel via AIPAC and co.

Larkin’s mainstream media-disseminated ‘journey’ from hater to apologist – if it’s one that he actually took, rather than simply concocted to promote a film that might otherwise struggle to find an audience – is thus doubly curious. Because it was bankrolled at the outset on the premise of being an

Experimental film examining the ‘shades of grey’ in ordinary life in Israel and Palestine.

Larkin ‘used to hate Israel’ till he went there? Hard to see, but that’s the project the Arts Council funded. In all likelihood Larkin didn’t have any big awakening bar realizing (a) that he prefers Israelis to Palestinians, and (b) that he could get his film, and himself, undue publicity by very publicly ‘switching sides’. That he ever cared about Palestinians (or ‘hating Israel’) is unlikely. It’s clear his allegiance isn’t to either ‘side’ or any principles, rather just to one young man. Larkin seems to be a case of opportunist Zionism, something for which the striking discrepancy between his boring but arguably ambivalent film, and his angry, hysterically anti-Palestinian writings provide ample supporting evidence.

FSoG will disappoint Zionists (in fact it already has, but they love Larkin’s written work), humanitarians, and everyone else in its paddle through the ‘conflict’ about which Larkin and FSoG have – Larkin asserted with characteristically whopping self-importance in his surly intro to the Dublin premiere (there was no Q&A) – reignited the ‘debate’ in Ireland. Of course, for those involved or who’ve checked, the debate concluded 44 years ago, but if hasbara is about one thing it’s about sustaining doubts with dusty debates. And if there’s any debate about FSoG‘s political content it’s probably within such a context, but this clumsy, weak mess fails dismally to touch on any but the most belabored themes of what was once a ‘conflict’ but is now high among the most crazy and glaringly criminal social arrangements in the world. More interesting than his slipshod work is the incredible, for an unknown, PR that Larkin’s enjoyed thanks to Independent News & Media. INM is the owner of a number of Irish publications which have sustained a frequency of sycophantic, anti-Palestinian rants published in recent months, and in whose Sunday Independent it looked, for a while, like Larkin’s poison pen was becoming a regular fixture.

Efforts to demonize the movement against Israel’s erasure of Palestine are peaking in Ireland, and may be faltering, but there’s been plenty of damage done already. Irish traditional act Dervish declined to play Israel following an appeal from the IPSC to respect the cultural boycott in place as long as Israel breaches international law. Boycotting culture is understandably subject to debate, but Palestinians’ human rights, many agree, are more important than the right of Israelis to enjoy (or export) cultural events. A May 4 official press release from Ireland’s Minister for Justice Alan Shatter scandalously linked the IPSC to Al-Qaeda, though, perhaps intentionally, refers throughout to the IPSG, for Group. But no national scandal ensued. Indeed, several media outlets reported it with merely the inevitable token ‘balance’, quoting the IPSC but emphasizing Shatter’s other harmful allegations. Neither the Independent or the Irish Times included the astonishing smear in their nonetheless uncritical reports, but the Sunday Times, to its credit, not only reported it but focused on the IPSC’s measured response.

In Shatter we see, as in myriad other cases, that a person can be as reasonable and liberal as people or politicians go, right up until the point of Israel, wherein bonkers Zionism kicks in, outrageous libel comes out, and we see humanitarians whose actions are politically sensitive – but gathering appreciable momentum – subjected to the most outlandish vilification. In Larkin we see something less interesting but similarly dangerous: human rights distorted and debased into a PR tool of the talentless but amoral, and a yellow editorial delighted to accommodate.

Craig Higgins & Van Poynton

Craig Higgins is a graduate student and native of New Orleans.

Van Poynton is a screenwriter and director based in Dublin.

The following two tabs change content below.

Latest posts by Craig Higgins and Van Poynton (see all)


15 Responses

  1. Nicky Larkin

    August 25, 2012 10:09 pm

    Thanks for all the PR and links! Van Poynton; you’ve dedicated a great portion of your life this year to stalking me and my film on facebook. Maybe we should go drinking pints? I’ll get Mossad to organise it Xxxx

  2. Van Poynton

    August 26, 2012 8:25 am

    Finally. NOW can I get that autograph?
    If my sporadic comments on your film’s FB page (not your personal page, as far as I’m aware, even if you administrate it) amount to “stalking” I should be behind bars for the predation to which I’ve subjected other far more dynamic, fast-moving pages.
    No surprise you equate research (and, dare I add, intellectual engagement) with a seedy, undesirable act.
    See above for clues as to the general purpose of this “stalking”.
    Re the pints – lay off them, and one shouldn’t, normally, require an intelligence agency to organize a session. Normally.
    I’ll pass on your kind words to my (no worries, not easily offended) co-author.
    Feel free to share the article.
    Best wishes,

  3. David L

    August 27, 2012 1:28 pm

    Very good and well-written article. I particularly liked how you contextualised Nicky Larkin’s ‘conversion’ to his present day love of Israel. There’s no doubt that such an opportunistic approach fits nicely within the current Irish media love-in with Israel. I wonder if others will follow this potentially profitable Zionist approach – especially in view of oncoming cuts to the arts budget.

    A friend who was at the Dublin creening also confirmed your points about the film (also evident from the clips) – saying that it wasn’t that the film was particularly propagandist one way or another, more that it was unwatchable. This is the part that amuses me; that Zionist groups, assuming that Larkin’s film will confirm their prejudices are being subjected to the visual equivalent of white noise.

  4. Craig Higgins

    August 28, 2012 1:35 am

    Thanks for the kind words. Nicky Larkin certainly comes off as an opportunist, and unfortunately there are many hired guns out there, in film, writing and the arts, who might look to his example as one to emulate. Of course, whether Larkin is one or not himself is known only by him and the Israeli foreign ministry. But, I think it’s safe to say that Israel and its defenders go to a great deal of trouble and effort to change the conversation over its abuses in the Occupied Territories, and surely some of the pro-Israel crowd are of this disposition due to some profit motive.

    The truth is, if the behavior of the state were to change, and ethnocracy abandoned, then the bad press would stop. No amount of documentaries which claim to ‘see both sides’, whether they are well-shot or not, can change this reality.

  5. eddie naughton

    August 29, 2012 10:12 am

    Looking forward to Van Poynton film on FREE gaza since the zionests left. Should be a good counterpoint to Larkins film. The scenes on the advance on womens rights since the Jews left should be most interesting. And footage from the International Womens Day celebrations in Gaza last March should also be riviting. Aspiring trade unionests and human rights is also another feature of the film I understand. As is freedom of speech for upholders of Gay rights. One hopes to see this this film soon before one expires from holding ones breath.

  6. Van Poynton

    September 1, 2012 12:30 am

    If there’s a genuine contribution on rights abuses in the Territories by Palestinians, then please make one. Your comment’s not necessarily irrelevant to the thread but makes no useful sense.

  7. Eddie Naughton

    September 1, 2012 9:55 am

    Well of course it doesn’t! The almost slave like conditions that Moslim women have to endure at the hands of their menfolk in free Gaza doesn’t suit the narrative that you and your ilk like to propagate, namely that the Jews or the Yanks or the Brits are to blame. And as soon as someone differs from that point of view then they of course must be in the pay of the Israeli state. There is a word for this type of arid thinking and it’s called Stalinism.

    When are left in Ireland going to stand up against the unspeakable oppression of Moslim women in Gaza and elsewhere throughout the Moslim world?
    A bit too much like hard work, I suspect.

  8. Van Poynton

    September 1, 2012 2:35 pm

    It would “suit the narrative” better if it were true. There are problems with gender equality in Gaza, many of them serious, as there are in virtually every country in the world – including Ireland, whose record in that regard has only been clean enough to speak of a wet day.
    But the “narrative” that concerns Palestinian solidarity is the colonization and destruction *of* Palestine *by* Israel. The Gaza Strip is subject to a military blockade by Israel which severely limits the movements of people and goods, chronically hampering economic and social development.
    You cheaply exploit the situation of women in Gaza to demonize the victim – Gazan society as a whole – and thus implicitly vindicate Israel, the Western colony which has been the bane of Palestinian life since 1948.
    Generally the left has always championed the universal emancipation of women, so that’s simply a red herring, irrelevant to this thread and the article above.

  9. Eddie Naughton

    September 2, 2012 9:14 am

    So the fact that a lesbian or gay person can’t come out in Gaza for fear of being torn to pieces is a result of the Israeli blockade! Is there some special school you people attend where logic of this kind is grafted irretrievably onto the brain? The fact is that nowhere in the Moslim world compares with Israel in its treatment of Gays and Lesbians and women in general and I have never come across a statement from anyone on the Irish Left condeming the inhuman treatment that they have to suffer daily in Moslim countries,especially in places like Gaza where Sharia must be endured. In the case of women this treatment consists of disfigurement if they are looking to be educated, murdered if they seek to educate females, strung up if they are raped and stoned to death if they so much as look a man who is not their husband. And you sum this up as gender inequality! Shame on you.
    The red herring Mr Poynton is your empty rhetoric about championing the universal emancipation of women. Go to Gaza your sisters need you.

  10. Van Poynton

    September 2, 2012 9:51 pm

    You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your own logic is apparently this: If a country tolerates homosexuals then that country can commit any crime it likes.
    I suppose civil rights progress in the U.S. makes 1 million-plus Iraqis slaughtered and millions more displaced okay, then. Sure, they have pride marches in the U.S.! It’s all good!
    I think I’ll hold onto my logic, thanks, as it actually fits the definition. And if you want to rave and rant about Sharia and Muslims, please do so elsewhere. You’re obviously not capable of discussing the topics in the article without going off on irrelevant broadsides, facts on your side or, so far, not.

  11. Nicky Larkin

    September 13, 2012 6:36 am

    You guys are all hilarious. Ye couldn’t agree on the colour of shit. And what about Syria, Iran, China, Russia…..the list is endless, but yet it’s only the “Zionists” that seem to bother ye….??

  12. Craig Higgins

    September 13, 2012 1:56 pm

    Mr. Larkin,
    I have noticed on a couple of occasions now the propensity of yourself and others for calling to task critics of Israeli policy for their refusal or reluctance to spend similar efforts on the actions of the Assad regime in Syria and others of that ilk. And I find this interesting, really. After all, while its true that most of Israel’s leadership class are former members of the military or intelligence communities, in part I’m sure a consequence of Israel having mandatory conscription, and could be mistaken by the untrained eye for a South American Junta were they to take off their nice suits and replace them with their old uniforms, it is to my mind unfair of you or anyone else to somehow equate the state’s actions and behavior with that of some of the other countries you mentioned. Although to the best of my knowledge China has not used fighter planes to bomb recalcitrant workers in Tibet anytime recently, or at all, in the manner Israel uses F-16s on Gaza we’d like to think our friend and ally there in the Middle East holds itself to a different standard than the one used by a Bashar Assad. Israel is supposed to be a Western-style democracy, after all.

    As such, those of us who criticize the policies of the state do so not out of malice but rather in the way a friend who sees another friend has a drinking problem points this out to the sufferer. Regrettably, Israel has an issue not with drink but rather with its refusal to give up on an antiquated and unworkable 19th-century idea of itself as a settler colony, which is by design inherently prejudicial towards Palestinians and other non-Jews in the region. Until the walls are torn down and the laws in that country changed to guarantee the rights of all the citizenry regardless of ethnic origin, the pressure has to be kept up to hopefully alter the obdurate direction the current leadership class in Israel has set itself upon. We can’t really hope to change the mind of a bloody despot like Assad or an autocrat like Putin, but perhaps we can help Israelis to see the error of their ways.

  13. Van Poynton

    September 14, 2012 12:24 pm

    Thanks, Craig, for that charitably considered reply.
    I must add, Nicky, you manage to pack an impressive amount of self-defeat into each bite-sized comment:
    Neither your articles in the Sindo or your documentary which we review are “about Syria, Iran, China, [or] Russia” so that’s pure non sequitur, other than to neatly add Israel’s name – or the “Zionists” – to a roll call of abusers. Well done.
    “Ye couldn’t agree on the colour of shit” is yet another unwise statement, for reasons obvious to anyone who actually reads our review of your output.
    As for putting Zionists in scare quotes – since you’ve proclaimed yourself as one in work we analyze (“How I became an Irish Zionist”), for the umpteenth time you’re simply not making any sense.