Nadav Lapid Faces “No”

[MUSIC] Hello and welcome back to On the Knows, the Jewish Currents podcast. I'm your host, Ariela Angel. Over the last couple of weeks, there's been an enormous amount written in the New York Times on Le Monde and Haritz among other venues about a controversy centered on the Dove Lapid and Israeli-born filmmaker living in France. Lapid has made several critically acclaimed films, including synonyms, Ahed's knee, and most recently, yes. And his work has taken home jury prizes at the Berlin Hall and Cannes. The controversy was focused on the Marseille Film Festival of Feed. There was a planned retrospective of Palestinian films at the festival this year. Meanwhile, Lapid was invited to head the jury. There was also a planned event honoring him and a masterclass that he would teach. When a dozen filmmakers threatened to pull their films from the festival, Lapid withdrew as head of the jury. When not to not quell the protests, he decided to cancel the event and the masterclass as well. The response from many in the film world has largely been to rally around Lapid with two letters published in Le Monde, one of them garnering over 350 signatures of high-profile figures in the industry. The letter's alleged that Lapid is being boycotted solely because of his identity, and one of them declares that, quote, "Nothing justifies the silencing of an artist. The cultural boycott is an intellectual dead end that we must collectively overcome." Meanwhile, filmmakers for Palestine allied with PAKB, which coordinates the academic and cultural boycott of Israel, pointed to the fact that Nadav Lapid's latest film, yes, received support from the Israeli Film Fund, was presented at the 2025 Cann Film Festival as an Israeli co-production and competed for the Ophere Awards, which is like Israel's Academy Awards. They wrote in a statement, "States have always invested in cinema, literature, the arts, and festivals as instruments of influence and legitimacy. Cultural production does not circulate in a political vacuum. It contributes to the representation of nations, the construction of their international image, and the dissemination of their narratives." This is precisely why cultural boycott exists. Not because artists are responsible for the crimes committed by their governments, nor because certain works should be prohibited, but because cultural institutions, funding systems, and distribution policies play a concrete role in state strategies of legitimation. I saw, yes, a few months ago in New York City, it's an incredibly striking film, in truth, it's like nothing I've ever seen before. And there can be no mistaking the content of the film, which seeks to depict the depravity of Israeli society during the genocide, our own Mitch Abbott or reviewed it, and I'll drop that review in the show notes. But it does open with the icon of Israel's Ministry of Culture, because of the funding it took from the Israeli Film Fund, which accounted for 13% of the film's funding. Today, I have Nadav Lapid here to talk to me about the recent controversy and to hash out some of our disagreements about cultural boycott. Nadav, thank you so much for being here. I guess I just want to start by hearing your version of the events. I've read so many versions now online, and they all seem to differ in the exact details, so I was hoping you could. Tell me from your perspective what happened. So about a month before the film festival, director of Contact with me, telling me that she's totally shocked. There was a series of intimidation. People threatening the festival are talking about boycott, calling the financiers of the festival, telling them that they're going to be a mess. Some character offies, some people also pulling other films. Since I'm going to be in the jail. So I know still that in a way, she's asking me without asking me to pull out myself, with Ro from the jury. I admit that I didn't predict it, but I pulled out. And then she insisted she said, "Yeah, but your presence is always important for us. We should absolutely keep this film masterclass and then we're talking about the book." And I wasn't so enthusiastic about anymore. I couldn't imagine myself going to Marseille doing a masterclass protected by the police call. I think a no one likes the idea of going to a place where he's hated. So at this point, I told him, "Okay, let's let's cancel the thing." And I told the story to two, three friends of mine, cinema people. They were shot much more than I was. They were terrified of the story. Immediately they wrote the petition. And I told them, thanks for the solidarity, I was really moved, but the solidarity buttons, I beg you not to do anything with this petition. They reformulated this petition. I wasn't involved in it, but the only one was kind of generous on their behalf. So there were two letters both published in Le Monde. It sounds like you're talking about the second letter. Cinema is not an embassy, and I'll just read a little bit from that. We must recognize the context in which these mobilizations are taking place. Faced with the genocide logic, currently being deployed against the Palestinian people in Gaza, and with the impotence of political institutions and the weakness of collective responses, many people are legitimately seeking forms of action. Questions of solidarity, responsibility, and resistance are now permeating the cultural world. They deserve serious discussion as they involve major political and ethical issues. But what does that stay care is simpler, an artist is reduced to their nationality. And this was repeated in the second letter and says that the cultural boycott of Nandav Lapid is an intellectual failure. Russian, Israeli, and Iranian filmmakers should not be threatened with extinction to atone for crimes committed by governments they are often the most fervent critics of. To those who would have us believe that disinviting them puts pressure on their states, we reply that it is bi-relentlessly continuing to invite them that this lever of protest persist. Nothing justifies silencing an artist. We stand with Nandav Lapid. The cultural boycott is an intellectual dead end that we must collectively overcome. So I have a lot of things that I want to ask you about this. I think it's obviously commendable also that in the first letter they mentioned the genocidal intent of the Israeli government and also that they recognize the difficulty of taking collective action in this moment. I think that that's really important and I think a lot of the places where I've seen you speak, you identify the lack of avenues for any kind of collective action. I'll just say I'll like speak personally. I'm a fan of your films. But I felt very disappointed by the tenor of the response for a lot of different reasons. A lot of the letters and the response and some of your response has basically made it clear that this was about you personally and your nationality and not about the funding of the films. It does not seem hard for me to believe that people would protest in Israeli heading the jury under any circumstance. But it does feel hard for me to believe that PAKB would have gotten involved if the films themselves were not partially funded by the Israeli government if the logo of the Ministry of Culture didn't appear ahead of the film if you weren't participating in the Israeli Film Festival in France, for example, which sends government officials from Israel to speak before them, et cetera. I wasn't participating in the Israeli Film Festival in France because the Israeli Film Festival in France takes place in March and April if not mistaken and the screening took place in September. So there was a kind of a factual problem here. But you know that I must say also the screening, 50% of the audience were like Jews of a certain age, most of them from where these groups in supporters of one way or another of Israel who see themselves liberals, define themselves liberals. In my head I always tell myself that there are really the last people and the narrative who believe that Israel is illuminated democracy or something. It's a news where I know I'm listening to this. So it was one of the most tense screenings that I ever read. It was a really, really like electricity in the theater. At the very beginning, the questions were super aggressive and they were like, how can you do that? And how can you show Israel like this? But while I was debating, you could feel that there is a shift. And then I felt afterwards how for many of them this illusion that they were clinging to for dozens and dozens of years, in a way for the whole life, that there is a real way to combine Zionism and democracy. That Israel is a candle of humanity in the middle of the storm of the Middle East. The disagusions are really shaken. And it's a very big thing. It hardly happens today that people are shifting. I actually think it's not true that it hardly happens today. It's happening today. Like we have like a window actually in the diaspora, not in Israel, but in the diaspora, we have a window. People are shook and they're looking for an off ramp. And I do think that that demands a re-examination of tactics. But I do want to go back to what we were talking about because I think it's important, which is the funding. When I saw that logo before the film, I kind of internally groaned because I knew what was coming. I knew what was coming around the film. It was only a matter of time before essentially this happened. It was very clear. And I have two questions. One is, you know, you're an internationally renowned filmmaker. I read a little bit from your producer, Judith Lou Levy, about what it's like. It takes to fund a film like this, what it takes to make a film like this, how difficult it is. But at the same time, like if anyone can do it, it's you. I mean, like if any Israeli filmmaker can make a film without Israeli funding at this point, it seems like it's you. On this podcast, we talk a lot about the way in which the thing that is interesting about cultural boycott and about BDS is that it forces Israelis to create new institutions, basically, or to create new paths through what exists so that there's a bridge to something better later on. So that instead of saying, okay, we're just working within this system where we take from these people, where we participate in that exchange, where like actually we're like, okay, like there's a different way of doing this. And Judith said in an interview that actually was very difficult and you can tell me if this is true, that it was very difficult to get European funders on board without Israeli funding because they were afraid, basically. And it seems like, well, what better way to sort of push back against that, to try to find a way of saying, no, we don't need the Israeli government as a guarantor of our viability of our ability to participate as filmmakers in this international conversation. And so I have two questions in here. One is about the funding and why take money in this environment and what it means. And another is just about like the focus on saying that this is identity-based when I don't think that PAKB would be involved without the funding. And what the value is of sort of talking about it that way in the press, in a way that kind of reinforces a stance of victimhood. I never stance, as you said, any sense of victimhood, like, and that person on earth was victimizing myself personally. I'm allergic to filmmakers more victimizing themselves. But Nadav, I just want to read some of the quotes that I read from you that I'd prefer to give these people some credit and not say this is anti-Semitism, but it's definitely an insane systematic fanaticism of a kind that's often typical of groups like this. And I'm going to stress this, accompanied by violence. It makes no distinction between individuals. In this view, I'm guilty by virtue of my identity. And it's a serious matter to move from a debate about Israeli funding for a film targeting a person in this case, my own body. Like the invocation of physical threat, which also comes up in the Le Mans letter about threats, defamation, harassment, and violence, which are punishable by law. So like, you can see how problematic this is when dealing with forms of Palestinian nonviolent resistance. I mean, it mirrors precisely the way that it is often smeared. I was never talking about physical violence. I took part in my life in many demonstrations in the territories where one can see what physical violence looked like or soldiers are using sometimes, real fire for people to get injured. I wasn't the most courageous person. Many people were 10 times more courageous than myself, but I can differentiate. And I never felt in a way physically insecure. The only source of information for me was this woman, Marseille, the director of the film. She was repeating again and again, the notion of intimidation. And yes, you know, I think that disregarding this debate around financing, etc. is not the same thing. We move here from a totally legitimate question about how one finance a movie to the legitimization of the presence of someone. I just want to explain to the audience that there's been a distinction made, for example, in Hards by Libylin Kinsky, between showing the film, which like would be a clear violation of the cultural boycott because of the financing and having you participate in the film festival as an individual. And you know, I don't know whether this seems like a gray area to the people in Pactby or what, but this is a distinction that's being made. And yeah, I mean, listen, I think it is a question, but I still am not sure that they would have a leg to stand on or be able to do that without the question of the financing of the film. That's why I'm just asking about that decision. I want to make sure we actually cover that and then we can talk more about other things. Yeah, so I mean, I think the question of financing is an interesting question. And in the case of yes, the main problem was not only the financing, but the movie was shown in the Jerusalem festival and competing in the of here a world. Like the Academy Awards. Yeah, exactly. And not only the financing. And I think that yes, this is a fascinating case because I mean, with the first version before December of October, we found easily half of the financing, a German French financing. And then to place the set of October and begin the war in Gaza, and after being short for several days, I try to examine what should I do with this. Because this thing is valid, it does make movies as well. What can one do when the gates of hell are widely open? And I went back to the script and reading the script, I felt to which extent the catastrophe was there. Of course, looking for a poetic way. But the script described already a society, not in the age, but already deep inside it. And the urgency, I feel. I mean, I felt that for me, this was like my highest task as both an artist and even me. And then the film become impossible because suddenly many European institutions, many German and French ones, which were always very, very loyal to my vision. Suddenly, they are like in the best case they are hesitant. Or they just respond by saying that unfortunately the project is too polemic or unforeseen. Unfortunately, it's too anti-Israeli or at this kind of moment, they cannot prefer one side on the other and in a way the only path is staying objective and taking the time. So I felt that it was no time to take. So we move from one private investor to the other. And at least after the time, the first thing that they say is like, they tell me, "Okay, you look like a talented guy, but I also ready to create anti-Israeli. We can discuss, as long as you promise us that the project will be objective or will give a voice or a producer Israeli style." And then we look, "Looks impossible, just impossible to make." So by the current of this, we have a film film which never raises these kind of questions, which never ask me to moderate to make it more objective, which never interfered. And also, I think you know that one should understand practically what we are talking about. Israeli Film Fund is composed of one director that to my personal opinion is much more courageous than myself and much more courageous than 99.9 percent of the cinema people I know in person. It's composed from her and the script was approved by her in person and other film director and a film critic. There were the only three Israelis who read the script before the beginning of the shooting. So the official representative of Israel found out that this movie exists only the day it was premiered in Cannes. This was already too late and since then they attacked endlessly. Yeah, I mean, to be honest with you, from my perspective, if there was a feeling that this was the only way that this film was going to be made, then if I were an artist who needed to make that film, I would make that film with the urgency. And I actually thought and read a lot in the last week about the making of Graceland, Paul Simon's album from the 80s, in which you know there was a complete UN cultural boycott of South Africa, including you know Black South African artists and musicians who from the inside, many of them were saying please boycott us. And this was a coordinated effort and Paul Simon, he didn't go to play in South Africa to segregated communities, but he wanted to go record with Black South African artists and he talked to Harry Belafonte, Harry Belafonte says go talk to the ANC and Paul Simon doesn't talk to the ANC. He doesn't do any coordination whatsoever and he just goes and makes the record that he wants to make. And obviously the musicians that he worked with were hugely grateful and actually ended up touring with him and all of these kinds of things. And the political establishment in the ANC and the anti-apartheid movement were very angry. But what we're left with, you know, whatever 40+ years later is Graceland, which is a masterpiece that stands the test of time. And for me, would I say I would rather not have Graceland? No, but it seems to me that there's like a temporary problem that like the boycott of the film in this moment is somewhat temporary in terms of the life of the film. And if you're going to break what is a boycott, an established boycott is accepted by some measure of Palestinian society in the diaspora and on the ground, you know, you say okay, I know that I'm breaking the boycott. And that's what it is like let the ships fall where they may, like I'm not going to talk about being boycotted as as an individual. I know I'm being boycotted as part of a positive action against the government. And the film speaks for itself. And also like when I speak in public, I'm going to speak about what's happening in Palestine as I know that you do. And the other thing that I would say is like I think a lot about Paul Simon's decision not to talk to the A and C at all, you know, like even if they were going to say, it's not possible. blah blah blah. You know, I know people who are on the BNC who are on PAKB. There's a lot of goodwill in order to work with people around different kinds of circumstances. Maybe it feels uncomfortable as an artist to do something like that. But it is also an act of solidarity to say like I'm actually interested or to talk to the filmmakers who pulled their films from FID like to say, I'm interested in finding a way through with you. Like isn't that also part of the dialogue that we're trying to create? I totally agree with you. I totally agree with you in the sense that we should join forces. And I find this dual silly. And I think there's this dual between myself, them or at the order. I mean, in the Israel and the Wattween TV channel, when they are about the case, they define it as a finally good news. I mean, it's clear that these inner struggles are only serving the opposite side. And I think that all of us know that the very end, the real feelings are of course not these people who work at men. I hope that they think the same thing about myself. But we all know who are the real feelings. What I'm concerned with is that first of all, I think that these people, they are fighting and an agronistic fight. Because this idea that Israel takes place of financing, a critical voice, seen order to widen its image as a democracy, who in Israel cares today about the image of Israel as democracy. Who in Israel is trying to widen in the Israel image? Who in Israel claims that Israel is an Israel-Irro democracy? All of this belongs to the past. I mean, even in my case, the Israeli Minister of Culture, you know, produced a video where it was like saying openly, it's not the Afro-Ped was offending our pure and sanctified soldier. Never ever he would get one cent for his movies as long as I'm pure. So I mean, you know, this is the total opposite of trying to hide political censorship. I mean, it's total opposite, you know what? I hear you completely. It begs this question raised by Catherine Haas in a reflection written in French in the outlet, "Lundi Matin." She says that terms have changed since Pacti was formed in 2004, right before the disengagement from Gaza. Since October 7th, it seems to me that no one can believe that Israel has the slightest desire to normalize anything other than war, murder, predation, and imperialism. The days when Israel sought to symbolically trade a gay pride parade for a modicum of recognition in terms of normalization are over, with its current representatives themselves now proclaiming that the state does not have to be democratic. If a cultural boycott is to be implemented, its terms must be reformulated, lest it completely miss its mark. It seems like she's saying here that we do have this sort of different situation and that this argument that also comes up in the film workers for Palestine statement that this is about legitimizing the state just isn't true anymore in the same kind of way and that maybe it needs to be rethought. So, I agree with you that it's no longer the strategy, even though, as you said, there are international Jewish audiences that still believe this, and not just Jewish audiences. I mean, there are also governments that are still hiding behind this idea. So, I totally hear what you're saying, but my question still stands, which is how do you do this with instead of against? Because now what has happened is that you have these letters, you have this movement that is basically saying the cultural boycott is intellectually bankrupt, period end of story, and like your film and your person has become like the hammer with which to tear down one of the institutions of resistance. Now, we can argue about whether that's effective. And I think that what happened around No other land where they like issued essentially not a boycott, but a soft wrap on the knuckles for No Other Land was a huge mistake, like enormous. There's a lot that goes on in the US around cultural boycott that I feel like is just sort of a waste of time, like very small institutions that don't have any power and don't do anything with Israel anyway. Like, there's a lot of things that feel kind of tangential. And yet, if there's any movement in this, we will have to do it together on some level. I don't really agree. The only thing that I was saying is that it's a huge mistake to focus on purity instead of focusing on courage. I think that the discussion over purity replaced the discussion over courage. Again, I can talk about my small perspective, you know, to go to shoot a movie like yes, in the middle of a wall. It demanded a certain level of courage. To shoot this movie in Israel were endless amount of technicians and actors refused to take part in the movie. And all the time we were afraid to be announced and we had to reduce the number of monitors and to analyze the Facebook profiles of each and every technicians that we hire. It demanded a certain amount of courage and of devotion. And instead, and instead we discussed, we discussed, and the security, if we spend endless time about technical questions and there are technical questions, it's a part of the solution. Yeah, I completely agree with you. But I also think that part of the reason that that technical question happens is because I don't want Pac-B or the BNC deciding for me on the content of the film. If they have to start adjudicating the content and whether in Israeli is sufficiently in solidarity or whether the work is sufficiently, you know, like with your film, I think it feels very clear with other films, it's not so clear. You know, there are people who are making quote unquote critical films where it's not actually clear where the person stands and how, you know, there's a very kind of liberal point of view with some of this stuff, whatever. Like, I think once you get into that mode, you're in a lot of trouble. You're in more trouble where they're adjudicating the artistic value and the political message of the film. So on some level, what we have left is the mechanics. I mean, now you sound like these people in the east of Europe who are like waiting for a committee to decide for them whether this is right and this is wrong, but I mean, aren't it a complex thing? I agree with you, a thousand percent. What I'm saying is I want to keep them out of the art. Like I don't want to hear from them on the content of a work at all. And when I'm talking about waiting to hear from them, I don't take them as my overlords, you know? I have relationships. That's a totally different relationship is having relationships with people who are also in the work with you. And I call and say I don't think that was a good idea or can we talk about it or whatever. Do they listen to me? Probably not, mostly not, but it's still a conversation. And also just to say, like, I'm trying my best from where I know and I'm not a person with a platform like you to do collective action. There's a difference between trying to be part of collective action and like waiting for the overlords to say something. And I know that it's difficult because look like sometimes I look around and I think, man, if only we had some party discipline, we could actually do something. But that would require people to, you know, listen to a centralized committee of blah, blah, blah. Now, I don't know where the line is here, but I do know that there is some obligation towards some kind of solidarity. And my question then is like, for you, what would that look like? What can we imagine? You know, I don't know. I mean, what they can tell about that. I'm talking about it in the very personal note that each one of my muri can see also the kind of attempt at least to create a volcanic eruption against his very society. My first short film was shown in Berlin, I was about the crimes of his very occupation and his own. But I don't think that it's enough only to make movies. The things that led me to live Israel, part of the fact that my kid was born and I didn't want him to grow up in this in this period of society, was the feeling that I'm not capable anymore to the political demands that living in such a place requires. I mean, I think that in a way, if you live in Israel, from just to don't, was the question how to end this injustice. And I wasn't able to do it, it was exhausted. That's why people say this is an filmmaker, exactly like I know. But what I know is that I think that sometimes we magnify too much our place and importance as artists and creators and media people. I mean, we all know what is needed. We all know that he only, I think, that the only thing that can maybe, maybe, maybe, stop this atrocity is harsh international sanctions about Israel, to really put Israelis on their knees and then saying it was a certain sadness because my dad lives in Tel Aviv and because many wonderful people and many friends who lived it, but I think it is as long as Israel, people to preserve a certain level of living, of living, nothing will change. And that only harsh sanctions and only when the criteria are full. the next president of France or the next president of the US will be also his attitude towards Israel and to which extent you know he is ready to create an immediate shift and immediate change only then the things will change. How to get there? I don't know. But I think that at least one should formulate the question. Yeah. But even that's an answer on some level. Like for me, if all of this had happened and the message was we need sanctions, like the French press comes to you and that's the statement, like we need sanctions on Israel, you know. Because to a certain extent, you become a symbol of what's possible in terms of solidarity, right? Like we don't have very many examples of Israelis on the left. We have them, but it's such a small segment of society. And you have an international stage and something like this becomes a symbol of fracture and that is painful. Of course it's painful. You know, it's painful also for me. I mean, in a way I feel sometimes closer to the people who boycott me than to the people who support me. Please sound for me. And believe me, I was talking openly about sanctions. I know that. It was about Israel from 2005, from the first time I got a Mike in a short film festival, I don't know where. And also these days, whenever I gave some interviews about this painful, in my opinion, it was a stupid incident, it would be like the biggest absurd possible if I would become a symbol of deleged emissation of any fall Palestinian resistance. I mean, I agree, but I also, I'm thinking of this scene in Yes, where the main character is in a car with kind of his childhood girlfriend. And she is now working in Hasbara. She's like publicizing all of the atrocities that happened on October 7th. And she goes into this, I mean, it's one of the most affecting scenes in the film actually, where she is in like a very rapid fire litany of the atrocities of October 7th. And there's like this sentiment, basically, that nobody really understands what it's like to be Israeli, ultimately. Like you can't understand, you know, so get the fuck out of our hair. And the first time I saw the film, I almost felt like that scene was like a black hole that threatened to suck the whole film into it on some level. Like it could be the emotional core of the film if you let it. And part of what I'm thinking about is how you go through an experience like you just had where the, you know, minister Mickey Zohar is basically saying, "Lapee does not understand that Israel's enemies did not distinguish between us no matter how hard he tries to win their approval. They have never seen him as one of their own. To them, he will always be in Israeli Jew." And listen, in my position, and I've just written about this in Jewish currents, like, and it's a different stage, I know. But all the time I feel like I'm facing essentially a desire to paint all of us, all of the anti-Zionist Jews as just Zionists in disguise. And there's a real suspicion and we're constantly being excluded from things. People won't write for us, whatever. These things are happening all the time. There's like a real essentializing that's happening. But I feel like the task is to sort of like resist the pull of isolation. I mean, clearly it's a threat in the film, like this sense of isolation, the sense of nobody understands, blah, blah, blah. Like how do we make sure that that doesn't mutate into something uglier? Some years ago, I was invited to be the president of the North of Jury in the Saranferin-Botanj in Barcelona, and so we were watching several movies, good men, and there was one Palestinian show. And Zita had an emotional power, and I was, of course, personally moved because of the way that it was talking about separation. And I don't know myself that, let me feel like this, if only Israel is included, sinning, could have watched it, something would happen. And so I decided that I would like it to get to the war, the main war, to get to the war. And then I found that all the other young filmmakers, they couldn't care less about Israel's Palestinian conflict. I mean, when I was talking to them about the importance, I felt that for them I was talking about the conflict between two tribes, Saran, the Globe. So for them, the movie was totally unimportant, marginal. Then I went to the director of the head of the session, and I explained her for me, it's urgent and important. And at the very end, we decided that the movie would get a special mention from the president of the truth. Two hours before the ceremony, we get a historical call from the Palestinian producer, who's like saying, please thank Nadal from the bottom of our hearts, we're really, really flattered, but asking to take back his special mention, like the worst thing that can happen to the Palestinian film is to get a special mention from an Israeli-finder actor. I mean, please please, it's going to be the end of the career of the film. Tell us, okay, what can I do? Two weeks later, I met very important Palestinian filmmakers living in Paris, and I told him the story. And he told me, actually, you can blame only yourself. You're only acting because of your guilt feelings and no one needs your guilt feelings. I think for me, staying in my mind is a meaningful episode because I found out that it was right. I mean, guilt feelings is never, I think, the right key. No, nothing politically is going to come from guilt. No, but you were asking about the scene of the movie. First of all, I believe that artists doesn't need to have a political role. In a way, as I said, I think that my movie is much more extreme than the common Israeli political scene, because I think the big majority of Israel political movies, they talk about this problem, that problem, and the jack points, settlements, the violence of soldiers, while I'm talking about the collective soul, the collective psyche of the nation, which is, of course, a harsh thing. And one should mention, in the art of yes, there is a new national anthem, the anthem of genocide, and it's sung by young children, which mean that this is also the future of this nation. And it's a much, much, much more radical thing to say than to claim that Israeli government is genocide, or that the war in Gaza was genocide, which is still a political argument, and not being inside the collective psyche. But I think my films try not to condemn, because I think the starting point is that the person who directed them, which is myself, is not better than the people who is talking about the way you know that I'm also infected. Well, so we talk a lot about what is railiness is going to be on the day after, if there is some kind of day after this. And I guess my question for you is, it's not clear right now how it can actually transform itself, but is there something there worth saving? We talk about what Hebrew will be when it's reintroduced in a utopic sense, as a diasporic language. And you make films still in Hebrew for an international audience. What are you carrying forward in Israeli-ness, or like what is the future of Israeli-ness? I remember that I was interviewed just after the Zellos of October, and I would have been asked if there was a place for a whole, and I said, I think there are moments when people should respect the despair. Yet, of course, we should remember that despair is a privilege. I mean, for people maybe like yourself and myself don't live there. But as myself, what will I mourn when Israel will not exist anymore? Several social books, several okay movies, but I feel there is also beauty in this place, and there is also beauty in the city where I was born. But I don't think that this beauty can be saved and rescued today. But when I put the camera on a boobish of straight-in-telopee, I feel peace. And you can see from the frame that I feel things in the frame that I feel things. I guess these are also part of what turns out to be art. I think that that's a good place to stop. Nadav Lapid, thank you for joining me. This has been another episode of On the Knows. Thank you to our editor, Jesse Brennan. If you liked this episode, share it, rate it, leave us a review, and as always subscribe to JewishCurrents.org. See you next time. [BLANK_AUDIO]