Chosen and Excluded – The Hate on Jews in Europe

Plot

The main topic of the film is Antisemitism and its modern appearance. Right- and left-wing, Muslim protagonists are interviewed and their shared antisemitic views are uncovered. Also common antisemitic forms, like recurring assault on French Jewish students or the 2014 Sarcelles riots are documented. European Jews talk about antisemitic attacks. Another topic is the BDS Movement and its supporting non-government and Christian Organizations as a part of modern anti-Semitism. For a better understanding of European antisemitic phenomena, an insight in the Middle East is given as well. Especially the role of Hamas and Fatah in the Gaza Stripis looked at. Palestinian students and Hamas government officials are being interviewed. The whole narrative is being commented by experts throughout the film. ^[4]

Production

Film rentals were Germany , France , Israel , the Palestinian Territories and Hungary . ^{[ quote needed ]}

Refusal to release

Despite accepting the movie after a first review in April 2015, on June 6, 2017 ARTE program director Alain Le Diberder is in the process of doing so because it does not meet the initial agreement. ARTE’s quality policy. ^[5] In the following days Alain Diberder and ARTE justified their decision in a letter to Josef Schuster, President of the Central Council of Jews in Germany and a press release. ^{[6] [7] [8] [9]} Initially, the co-producer and second-party TV network – the German WDR – refused to make the film public, sharing ARTE’s judgment.

Only when days later Das Erste , a public TV network related to WDR, ARTE followed. ^[10]

Reception

France

According to Johann Chapoutot  ( fr ) , the documentary is under average. “the general thesis HAS year intolerable intellectual and moral grossness: Roughly, a first Holocaust Was done by antisemitism intoxicatd Germans (…) and a second is prepaid by Arabs / Muslims Who-have suckle the haste of Jews with maternal milk. ^{[11 ] [12]} He think aussi que la casting “is intellectual manipulation” ^[13] and the autors “take the num for stupid” ^[14] [12] .

According to Samuel Ghiles-Meilhac  ( fr ) , the “current forms of anti-Semitism are serious topics, especially in Europe.” This documentary pretends to present them to the public and to denounce them.But, between the intentions proclaimed in the title. .) and the result, the disparity creates the sensation of a big confused and biased embarrassment ^[15]. [12] He adds that “the revelation that these animated documents lead to inexpressive accusations that are poorly documented. Criticize the Israeli organization B’Tselem and the French rapper Medina is legitimate. Suggesting that the first Holocaust denier and that the second considers that “the Zionists rule the world”^[16] [12] .

According to Nicolas Lebourg  ( fr ) , “in this movie, which is not a documentary, the spectator of conspiracist videos will find himself with pleasure: the transnational anti-Israeli octopus is everywhere, beating colossal flow of money, direct the media and politics ” ^[17] [12] . He also think that “two typical processes of conspiracy theories are constantly used: the amalgam and the confusion between the part and the whole.” The anti-Semitism, the anti-Judaism and the criticism of the Israeli policies are treated as a single object, so that Christianity , Islam and European civilization are depicted as fundamentally anti-Jewish ” ^[18] [12] . About the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the movie move from the “Palestinian president to a Nazi dignitary, through World War II through the character of the Grand Mufti only, the 900,000 men of the Waffen SS are reduced to Bosnian Muslim volunteers, and, after having reduced Nazism to the Great Mufti, it is the Palestine Liberation Organization from Europe to the Palestinians. This article presents a general view of the concept of colonialism, and the same time in this process of confusion between parts and totality of phenomena ” ^[19] [12] .

Germany

Shimon Stein, Israels ambassador in Germany 2001 to 2007, ^[20] wrote in Zeit : “The documentary of hatred against Jews in Europe confused criticism of Israel with Antisemitism.” Thereby it fails to show the real problem: the classical Antisemitism. The review was published under the title “Antisemitism-the enemy is right-wing.” ^[21]

Historian Michael Wolffsohn described the documentary as “by far best, smartest and historically deepest documentary on this topic, while at the same time.” ^[22] Berlin-based Islamist expert and author Ahmad Mansour praised the film as “great and overdue.” ^[22] Götz Aly , a German historian and political scientist: “The film documents the corrupt, Hamas-controlled ‘self-administration’ of UN relief funds in Gaza. Now, Arte’s program director The Diberder claims that the film lacks ‘multiple perspectives’. The opposite is true. ” ^[22]

Frank Arno, journalist by Spiegel Online , commented that the film had major production flaws. ^[23] Mirna Funk writing in a film that reads as a propaganda film and says it is only a little bit of anti- Semitism in Europe, its main focus is labeling criticism toward Israel as antisemitism. ^[24]

Peter Ullrich from the Center for Research on Antisemitism claimed that the film had interesting details, but was poorly made and misleading. ^[25]

Both WDR and Süddeutsche Zeitung journalist Matthias Drobinski see great generation flaws in the documentary. The SZ journals further claims that the film was produced out of the anger of the filmmakers, the film was less of a documentary but rather a statement or polemic. The viewer has to be on the side of the producers; if not, so the documentary indicates, the viewer will be on the side of Hamas and Julius Streicher . Matthias Drobinski concludes that a film about modern anti-Semitism is important, but that the lack of craftsmanship was sad. ^[26]

Bild made the documentary public. On the same day, Arte responded with a statement that it had been noted that it had been written that it had been written. “Even though this approach is strange, ARTE has no objection to the public’s own opinion on the film.” Furthermore:

ARTE kann und will den Film jedoch nicht durch eine eigene Ausstrahlung nachträglich legitimieren, da er, ohne dass ARTE darüber informiert wurde, gravierend von dem verwenden Sendungskonzept abweicht. Eine solche Vorgehensweise kann ARTE in diesem wie in jedem anderen Fall nicht akzeptieren.
Die Unterstellung, der Film der aus politiken Gründen nicht ins Programm ist schlichtweg absurd: Der ursprünglich von der Programmkonferenz genehmigte Programmvorschlag sah ausdrücklich das Thema des unter dem Deckmantel der Israelkritik versteckten Antisemitismus vor – entsprechend der editorialen Linie von ARTE als Europäischer Sender aber nicht im Nahen Osten, sondern in Europa.

-  Original in German; ARTE , ^[27]

However, ARTE can not and does not wish to legitimize the film by means of its own broadcasting, without ARTE being made aware of it. Such an approach can not be accepted by ARTE, neither in this case in any other.
The hypothesis that the film does not fit into the program for political reasons is simply absurd. The program proposal, originally approved by the program conference, expressly provided the theme of anti-Semitism hidden under the cover of Israeli criticism, but in Europe and not in the Middle East, as ARTE is European.

-  English translation; ARTE , ^[27]

International

The Simon Wiesenthal Center requested the European Parliament to screen the film in its chamber as a reaction of ARTE’s initial refusal to broadcast the film. ^[28]

Reactions

Six investigators are researching the statements in the film according to the WDR. ^[26]

Sources