With all the disturbing developments going on in the world this week, it is a surprise to see that Mel Gibson’s drunken antics on the weekend captured so much attention. Neither his drinking habits nor his anti-Semitic views were secret; however, the timing of this latest escapade has meant that reams of newspaper space and gigabytes of bandwidth have been devoted to discussing this.
The wider question that may be asked was well put by Ann Althouse:
Gibson, on the other hand, has revealed something loathsome about his mind that affects our interpretation of the works of art that sprang from that mind. In particular, it changes “The Passion of the Christ,” which had to be defended at the time of its release from charges that it is anti-Semitic.
I did not see anything particularly anti-Semitic in that movie, myself, but I was not looking for it either. The violence of the movie left a more profound reaction on me then anything else.
In any event, there is nothing new in artistic and creatively talented people having repulsive political views or social habits, as Andrew Norton points out:
Personally, I’d want nothing to do with people who are anti-Semites. But is judging people in the arts by their social and political views a sustainable proposition? Should we not listen to Wagner’s music because he was an anti-Semite? Or if Wagner’s anti-Semitism is too much to take, how about T.S. Eliot, described as “lightly anti-Semitic in the sort of vague way which is not uncommon.” (Does being “not uncommon” make it better or worse?). And how about Philip Larkin, whose poetry I like? This appeared in a recent review of books by and about Larkin:
They [Larkin’s letters] are also in many instances extremely funny, if appallingly so. Larkin’s latest biographer, Richard Bradford, gives a representative sample of the kind of things with which Larkin the letter-writer sought to amuse his friends: He complained to [Kingsley] Amis in 1943…that “all women are stupid beings” and remarked in 1983 that he’d recently accompanied Monica [Jones] to a hospital “staffed ENTIRELY by wogs, cheerful and incompetent.” …His views on politics and class seemed to be pithily captured in a ditty he shared again with Amis. “I want to see them starving,/The so-called working class,/Their wages yearly halving,/Their women stewing grass…” For recreation he apparently found time for pornography, preferably with a hint of sado-masochism: “…I mean like WATCHING SCHOOLGIRLS SUCK EACH OTHER OFF WHILE YOU WHIP THEM.”[8] Although it is not much of a defense, one might say of Larkin that he was the victim of what our teacher-priests used to call “bad companions.”
Even as a joke, and even if prompted by ‘bad companions’, it doesn’t make Larkin look good. Unfortunately, however, I think it is entirely unrealistic to expect artistic and literary types to have attractive social and political views. While our local luvvies haven’t come up with anything as bad as Gibson (and now, of course, we think he is definitely an American) they are more than slightly prone to foolish utterances. It’s almost as if the analytical and careful thinking that leads to political views worth considering and the emotional insight and flights of imagination that lead to good art are mutually exclusive.
And of course, Hollywood and the wider literary-arts- musical establishment has been filled for years with people who have had pro-communist sympathies. Sadly, the notion that it is beyond the pale to support murderous ideologies of the left have never really taken hold in our wider society. For the thoughtful person who peruses their cultural interests, there is nothing for it but to hold one’s nose. Maybe one day artists will be judged by the content of their character, but I won’t be holding my breathe.
Am I the only one who feels deeply uncomfortable with Mel Gibson’s apologies? I think he produced the best performance of his acting career. Let’s review it:
A mega-rich drunk drives through a residential area on twice the speed limit, 50% above blood alcohol limit. Overall, he is at least 8 times more likely to kill or injure another person then a law-abiding driver. When pulled over by a cop, he blamed Jews for everything! For his speeding, for him being drunk, and for starting all wars in our history – including, for example, 1211 Genghis Khan invasion of China, I guess.
I think that’s an Oscar-winning script. Big thank you to Mr. Gibson for his wonderful performance, for revealing the true motivation behind anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Great post. But there’s nothing surprising about the amount of space devoted to this – at least, not in the US. There are some views you are allowed to have, even though they are offensive in the extreme (for example, believing that Che was a liberator), and others you are not (though they are also offensive). Anti-semitism is a no-no, and these kinds of things always demand that everyone stand up and declare their loyalty in public for hours on end. (There must be a genetic basis for Stalinism…)
I’ve been enjoying watching Christopher Hitchens pretend to be Jewish, though. I guess he technically is, but he only found out when he was 38 and therefore can’t have been a victim of anti-semitism ever and so can’t possibly have an excuse for taking quotes out of context to prove someone is a Holocaust denier. And yet that’s what he does:
In fact, in the interview in question Gibson goes on to say in no uncertain terms that the Holocaust happened:
Nothing particularly offensive about that!
But OK, I’m sure Gibson really is a Holocaust-denier when the tape’s not rolling, and I don’t honestly care. It is generally accepted that the Holocaust happened and was horrible; deniers like Gibson’s dad are laughed off in public. What I find offensive is people like Hitchens fudging with their quotes to stoke the flames. As if there weren’t enough racists in the world without having to invent new ones! Particularly annoying from Hitchens, who has never been a victim of any kind…
The arts are filled with lunatics of one kind or another. This celebrity’s views on anything, drunk or sober, are just about as important as Garafalo’s politics or Baldwin’s travel plans.
What’s next—Jolie has cellulite in her lips? Uma Thurman’s name isn’t on the “approved” list?
Isn’t there something, anything, going on in the world that might actually be important to talk about, and concern ourselves with, other than whether or not this transplanted Aussie hates Jews, at least when he’s stinking drunk?
Phooey.
I shudder at the soullessness of those who have colder feelings for Elia Kazan than for Fidel Castro.
What absolutely kills me is how the media gleefully maligns Gibson for being an anti-semite while presenting the war in Lebanon in such a way as to make Israel look bad while defending the terrorists and their supporters. It’s major news that Gibson said he doesn’t like Jews in a drunken stupor, but when there are groups out there killing Jews with the support of countries that seek to wipe out Israel, I see quite a bit less outrage. Hypocrites.
I don’t know how much coverage it’s getting overseas, but a (to me) very important part of this story is that the LA Sheriff’s Department tried to cover up his behavior, and then got caught at it. This is hardly the first time our incredibly sleazy Sheriff, Lee Baca, has been caught giving special treatment to the rich and powerful, but it’s been years since he got caught doing anything this blatant.
Interestingly, the BBC World Service report announced that he has not been charged in relation to the anti-Semitic remarks. I guess that the idea that he might be probably would never have occurred to the LA cops. However it is interesting how UK journalists now suppose that you can or ought to be prosecuted for expressing offensive ideas.
Without intent on behalf of the stupid Beeb this supposition is likely to transmute in other parts of the world with no tradition of free speech to further implicit special treatment of Mel, and unwarranted deductions that Hollywood has special laws to protect Jews from insult. A robust response from the unfortunately-named Anti-Defamation League will in due course cement the impression. Thus is world opinion made.
Terry Crane,
… the true motivation behind anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
It is a strange and dangerous presumption that there is one ‘true motivation’ for both and that they are much the same thing. Even the assertion that either anti-Semitism or anti-Zionism is a coherent entity is too much.
In my own terms I’m in no way anti-Semitic, in that I have nothing against individual Jews on the grounds they are Jewish, though as an atheist it is hard for me to be friendly to Judaism per se. I am however entirely anti-Zionist, in that I am fundamentally opposed both to ideas of national self-determination and to God-given collective rights that trump those of individuals. Yet I am in general favourable towards the de facto state of Israel as a broadly liberal, semi-secular state in a world with to few of them and a region with fewer. But I’m very critical of its current brutal foreign policies, which discredit that status.
Now by some people’s reckoning, anyone who criticises Israel, at all, is motivated by anti-Semitism and all criticism of Israel is therefore invalid. That is circular bigotry, too; and in the face of such totalitarian rhetoric, I’m going to stand up for anti-Semites.
The motivation for someone’s views does not affect the worth of the views themselves. Analysis biased by irrelevant prejudice, may be more likely to be wrong, perhaps. But an irrational drive may also allow people to work through to truth by ignoring conventional inhibition. You cannot show someone’s views are wrong by blackening his character, any more than you can by pointing to the colour of his skin or his family’s relgious observance.
Fairly tortuous reasoning, Guy. Yes, a bigot may say intelligent things from time to time. (The old saying, “even a stopped clock is accurate twice a day”). But if a man professes hatred of Jews, blames them for many of the ills of the world, makes a violent porn-flick depiction of Christ’s death, then I am disinclined to respect a single word of what such a man would say. Of course, even twisted people can produce art: Wagner springs to mind, although I personally would not listen to Wagner’s bombastic din if you paid me.
I loved the movies Braveheart, the Year of Living Dangerously and even quite liked the Mad Max films, but the fact has to be faced: Gibson is an anti-semitic bigot who hopefully is finished as a film maker. Good riddance.
You are of course correct to warn people not to conflate anti-semitism with criticism of Israel’s foreign policy per se. True. The problem is that a lot of people do conflate both, quite intentionally. Hizbollah, for instance, or Hamas, or Iran, are not simply interested in rectifying a debate about Israel’s borders or its policies to its neighbours. These entities want to wipe Israel out. Period.
Maybe one day artists will be judged by the content of their character
I tend to judge artists by the content of their art, but maybe that’s just me. Of course if an artist is a sadistic psychopath, I’m not going to think highly of them, but communist sympathies are a price well worth paying for decent art.
The motivation for someone’s views does not affect the worth of the views themselves.
Of course you are right. But try telling the Internet that… 🙁
Mine wasn’t really a stopped-clock point, and not particularly directed at Mel, but if he says something interesting (which seems unlikely, I grant) then I’ll pay attention to the thought.
I do agree that people on both sides elide criticism of Israel with other things and other objects, often deliberately. This is a process that happens all the time and is particularly problematic in relation to Middle Eastern politics. Precisely because it is so highly emotive and confused, it offers fabulous opportunities for manipulators. Look at the massive success the Socialist Workers Party in Britain has made out of the Iraq War.
It goes without saying that Mr Gibson is free to hold any views whatever that he so desires. He is free to hate anyone he wishes so long as he does not commit acts of force, fraud or theft against those persons… acts which would be illegal regardless of whether he had any particular feelings for or against the target.
He is free to generate his art and the market will decide whether what he creates fulfills a need or not. Whatever he said or did not say will be forgotten or dimly remembered as “something naughty Mel did”, but for the extra publicity he will get in the gossip mags and the column inches next to the Elvis sightings in the newspapers none of use would ever read anyway.
The real diversity is a world filled with people of many different ideas and philosophies, right, wrong, indifferent or poles apart that manage to live side by side by acceptance only of non-coercion.
So the only part about the Gibson story I find even a midge above ho-hum is his reckless endangerment of others. He is a binge drinker and not unlike some other Aussie’s I have known. Like many Hollywood big names, he got a bit of a free pass from the cops.
So is there any meat here?
Guy Herbert,
anyone who labels himself “anti-Zionist” is antisemite in disguise. Admit that to yourself. Israel has the same right to defend itself as any other country. You may or may not like Israel’s policy, but denying the Israel’s right to existence is clear antisemism, sorry Herbert.
Pavel, you can be a zionist without being jewish. You can be a Jew without being a zionist. One is a political viewpoint, one is a persons religion. Even I (not being known for my logical reasoning) can see the nonsense in your statement. There are many people who are atheists like myself, whose political views I disagree with, this does not mean I hate atheists.
Dale, yes, I must admit that libertarians should yawn at a prick like Gibson except for the issue of driving while drunk and endangering the lives of others.
I think the reason that the Beeb has jumped on it is so that they can point to it and say “see were are unbiased”.
I think the coverage of the incident is fine. First of all he got a pass by the cops in Hollywood when being way over the limit (anyone one else would be seriously f****) and secondly he exposed himself to be the Jew-hater that he really is.
He makes a Christian snuff flick that depicts Jews as the evil baddies and then he rants against Jews as being the route of all evil in the world. Gee I wonder if there is any connection mb? The fact that extreme Christian nutters are jumping to his defence shows them for what they are as well.
Pavel,
Many people who make categorical assertions like that are idiots in disguise. In case you really don’t see that’s begging the question, and aren’t just playing the game of elision of interests that Jonathan refers to above:
A right to continued existence is not the same as legitimate origins. Nor is it the same as a right to continue any established policy. Nor should one confuse the rights of any group of people to exist with that of a state, whether they coincidentally share a label or not. I repudiate all nation-states, not just Israel.
A state has a right, indeed a duty, to defend its citizens aginst external physical threats. That’s one of the few things states are good for. But that right is not unlimited or unconditional, and it is entirely independent of the legitimacy of the particular form of government.
I am quite happy with the state of Israel existing… but I also agree with Herbert’s point that there is a disconnect between +/- semitism and +/- zionism. There are four possible sets here and all are different. I could even imagine an anti-semitic pro-zionist… it is a similar stand to that of many Civil war americans who were severely racist but were for the idea of ‘shipping them all back’. as a kinder, gentler final solution. That is how Liberia came to be.
To top it all off, I listened to an interview the other day with an anti-zionist Rabbi. I presume under certain worldviews that implies he hates himself?
He had some very interesting things to say about the anti-zionist position in rabbinical thought, none of which I had ever heard before.
So I’ll defend Herbert. He states s a perfectly reasonable intellectual position. He does not call for the end of israel; he only questions the judgement of it’s initial creation. He is not alone and would find rabbi’s saying exactly the same.
So disagree with Guy’s opinion, but please don’t tag him as hateful.
Well Guy a lot of lies are told about the origins of Israel (starting, perhaps, with the Emperor Hadrian – who invented the name “Palestine” to claim that the land was not rightfully Jewish, not that if he had found any “Philistines” he would have given the land to them).
For example, there was Edward Said (spelling – the man who made his name claiming that “Orientalist” writers were anti-orient – whereas, in fact, they were the western writers who were pro-orient).
My favourate Said line was how an evil mob destroyed his family’s home – he always implied it was a Jewish mob, actually it was an Arab mob. The family home was in Cairo – and the family were disliked (among other reasons) because they were Christain.
Actually most “Palestinians” are of Egyption origin and came into the area within the last hundred years.
Even way back in 1890 the biggest ethnic group in Jerusalem (according to the Ottoman census) were the evil Jews.
Land in the area was bought from Arabs, and after the mass killings of the First World War was bought again.
Then we have the mass driving out of Arabs from that bit of the Holy Land that the Jews managed to hold in the 1940’s (a tiny proportion of the total land of the British mandate of of course).
It often shocks people who go to Israel how many Arabs there are – this is because (in spite of the appeal of the various Arab leaders to get out of the area – till they could come back as victors) a lot of Arabs stayed.
Of course some Arab villages and towns were hit – but for real population clearing one had to go to the “West Bank” and Gaza – hardly a Jew was left alive there when the Arabs had finished.
Arabs have always had strong stomachs – after all the Grand Mufti visited the death camps during World War II (which even Hitler did not do) – it was not enough to know that the Jews were being killed, he wanted to see it.
As for Mel Gibson – he can say what he likes. I hope he makes lots more films (even if they are as anti English as they normally are).
In the old days of free speech such things were quite normal.
Winston Churchill (and most other people) used to say and write racialist things (even when sober).
Saying nasty things about Jews does not mean that one wishes to murder Jews – I wish people would understand that.
As for religious lies – the most important one (politically) is that “the Prophet” went up to heaven from Jerusalem.
Actually this man never visited the area (he was in Arabia) – although he did, supposedly, have a dream about it.
Very good point indeed, and it needs to be made a lot. I often hear the standard line from Israel’s critics that because Israel is an “artificial state”, it is, therefore, in some sense illigitimate and must be obliterated. That is nonsense. If one looks at a lot of the countries in the ME, what do you see? Lots of straight lines on the map. Many of the nations there were constructed by the European imperial powers (such as Syria and Lebanon, etc). And yet one never hears any complaints about this in the sense of those states being “artificial” in some bad way. I wonder why?
Israel came to existence in controversial circumstances. So did the United States (ask any Native American Indian). Whole parts of the country were bought, as happened when parts of the south were purchased from France.
What we see here is the argument that there is somehow some “immaculate conception” doctrine of nation states. It is a pure fantasy. There is probably no state on the planet that came to existence without someone getting shafted in some way.
In truth, the reason why so many Islamists hate Israel is that is a successful, prosperous place in sharp contrasts to the totalitarian shitholes they live in and wish to create. Justice has little to do with it.
Paul,
(starting, perhaps, with the Emperor Hadrian – who invented the name “Palestine” to claim that the land was not rightfully Jewish, not that if he had found any “Philistines” he would have given the land to them).
Less a lie than an imperial administrative decision, I’d say. The idea of ‘rightfully Jewish’ land (insofar as that’s meaningful at all) seems anhistorical as well as weirdly collectivist: the province was Roman, dotted with colonia, undergoing a slowish change of control under a dominant military power. So not too unlike today – save that the Roman occupation at that point was more than twice as old as the Israeli one.
Naming the province after Philistines might have made sense in two ways: 1. to demote the apparent importance of the turbulent Jews by losing “Judea”, and 2. the Philistines-Phoenecians were well-known as the precursors of Carthage, and a significant cultural influence so marking their homeland as a Roman province would mark a claim over a significant Mediterranean culture. (And as a man from a Punic colony at the other end of the world, at least in tradition, that might have been of significance to Hadrian.)
I submit Hadrian wasn’t going out of his way to ‘lie’ about the Jews. His concern with the area would have been consolidating the Parthian frontier and keeping trade flowing. Judaism is only of worldwide importance today because of the unpredictable – to Hadrian – success of Christianity.
Oh come now, there are important differences. For one thing, the modern day “occupiers” are no less native to the land than most of the people supposedly being “displaced.” As pointed out by Paul, the Palastinians are largely immigrants too. This was not the case with the Romans and the Jews of the time – the Jews having already established a long-term home in Israel, and the Romans just being adventurers who showed up for fun. For another thing, if you accept the idea that an “administrative decision” by an occupying empire is automatically valid, then you’ve pretty well justified Israel’s existence on your own – there was a mandate and a partition after all.
Agreed that there is no cosmic ethical Jewish “right of return,” as the Zionists believe. But there is a legal right established by the authorities in the region, who, like all legal authorities, are allowed to decide who enters and exits their nation.
I think Paul’s point was merely that any claims of past Palestinian “statehood” based on what you call an “administrative decision” are flimsy at best. Whether or not renaming Judea “Falastin” is a “lie,” it’s hardly a basis for concluding that the present-day Palestinians are the same “Philistines” Hadrian imagined lived there, much less that “Palastine” is their ancestral homeland. Whether or not Paul exaggerated in his choice of terms (and I’m inclined to believe he didn’t – the point of the renaming was to mislead as to the “rightful” occupiers of the land as understood at the time) – the overall point is the same: the idea that “Palastine” was for centuries home to “Palastinians” before the Jews came in and pushed them out was fabricated for political expedience. This is as distinct from the Romans, who did, in fact, displace an existing nation.
Actually Guy, Hadrian had just kicked out the Jews from the land – after another revolt (that of Bar Kokba)
It was part of his plan to claim that the land had never been Jewish – nothing much to do with Pathian trade or any of the other stuff you think it was.
Hadrian had a big problem with the Jews anyway. He was very much a supporter of Hellenistic culture, which the Jews viewed (fairly or unfairly) as a mixture of worship of the ruler (rather than God) and sodomy.
The modern world might take Hadrian’s side on the Gay question, but the Jews (like the Christians) were a bit bigoted on this point – especially when it involved under age boys (which it did with those who followed what they liked to think of as Greek culture – actually Greek culture varried between Polis and Polis and at different times, but Romans who thought they were “Greek” did not want to hear about that).
As for collectivist – I guess the God centered stuff is a bit collectivist (if there is a “Jewish State” how can non Jews be a full part of it?).
But then so was Hadrian’s Seleucid style worship of the ruler (of course the Jews had been great foes of the Seleucid Empire because, unlike the Macedonian successor state to Alexander, it demanded the worship of the ruler as a God).
Hadrian could be rather more intolerant of people of who did not worship him (and other Gods he named such as the rather young man who died on the visit to Egypt) than Jews could be of nonJewish people living in the Holy Land.
I should add that a lot of Romans were tolerant of the Jewish problem with ruler worship – even though it went hand in hand with the idea there was a “higher law” that could trump the ruler’s demands.
Partly this was a “they are just following the ways of their forefathers – would it not be nice if we Romans had, oh the modern world is such a decline from the Republic…….”
But other Romans even tolerated the Christians (who had no “we are following our forefathers” line.
Trajan (even though he faced a Jewish revolt in 115-117) instructed the Younger Pliny to not punish Christians (for not worshiping the ruler and denying the existance of the other Gods as well) unless they invaded the court and demanded punishment (which some Robert Fisk type Christians did).
I suspect that my favourate Emperor (Nerva) would have just pretended that he could not see or hear the Christians as the court guards kicked them out.
Joshua,
…it’s hardly a basis for concluding that the present-day Palestinians are the same “Philistines”
I certainly didn’t do that, and I can’t see I where I might be thought to have implied it.
The Levant has been a crossroads and cockpit for all the history we have. It’s never been unpopulated, for all the slaughter. But there’s been endless change and mixing (as elsewhere, no doubt). It is true I’m not much impressed by Zionist claims that most of the occupants of Palestine in the first half of the 20th century were recent immigrants, but equally I don’t see that it makes any difference if they were.
Where anti-zionism spills over into anti-semitism is when different standards are applied to the actions of Israel than to any other (by definition non-Jewish) state.
Much of the commentary on the defensive war being waged by Israel fails this test.