Itamar K. tells the story of Itamar Koler, a young violinist who grew up in Jerusalem and who has decided to become a film director. After a stay in the U.S., he returns to his homeland and settles in Ramat Gan. There, he devotes all of his energy to finding a producer for his first film, for which he wrote the script: it is the story of an Israeli opera singer, Shaul Melamed,, a charismatic personality unlike many Israeli intellectuals. Shaul believed that the state of Israel had a right—and duty—to defend itself in the face of constant Palestinian attacks. But it is precisely this politically incorrect view that repels those who might finance the work. In search of a financier, Itamar rediscovers the contradictions and fragility of the Israeli cultural environment, which is dominated by characters of dubious professionalism, and hilarious artists willing to do anything, all with their own, very personal visions of the fate of the Promised Land. Itamar K. is a sharp and ironic criticism of the contradictory cultural world, written by Iddo Netanyahu, a most incredible author.
In an interview with The European Conservative, Netanyahu discusses, among other things, the war against Israel, the cultural dominance of the Left, the deception around the peace process, and controversial judicial reforms. His satire, Itamar K., targets the left-liberal Israeli cultural scene. The German translation was published last September. From March 20 to 26, he will be on a reading tour in Germany, where he will present his novel and talk about the current situation in Israel.
You are a doctor by profession. How did you become a writer?
At some point in medical school, I felt that medicine by itself would not be enough to satisfy me intellectually. And so, during a year that I had taken off my studies (following the death of my brother Jonathan in the famous rescue at Entebbe in 1976), I took up writing and I haven’t stopped since.
Is it a burden to bear the surname Netanyahu in these dramatic times?
I am not sure “burden” is the right word for it, whether in these times or any other time. The family name certainly has become famous over the years—to some degree because of my late father who was a well-known historian, then much more after the death of my late brother Jonathan, and then of course when my brother Benjamin rose to political prominence. But rather than being a burden, the name Netanyahu, which is held in high esteem and affection by multitudes in Israel, is for me a source of pride. So, besides the fact that I may feel discomfort when a stranger recognizes me in the street—and this happens because I myself have become known over time—I feel no burden at all.
The main character of your novel does not realize his dream of filmmaking in Israel. It reads like a criticism of a society that abolishes the right to the freedom of expression and free speech. Is it an allegory for the situation in Israel, or is the scope much wider?
Freedom of expression is indeed limited in Israel and has been so since the creation of the state. You could say what you wanted—no one would throw you in jail—but chances are that, if what you say does not conform to the political dictates of the Left (which has been controlling the various platforms of expressions) and if it runs counter to the Left’s agenda, you will find it very difficult to make your views or your artistry known to the public. That is why the hero of my novel is not able to make a movie from his script, because the script is not totally “politically correct.”
Although, over the years, there has been a slight lessening of the Left’s control over the platforms of expression, the control is still tight and true freedom of expression is still a long way off.
As for the West, it has unfortunately followed in Israel’s footsteps in these matters, and recently, in some countries, has even surpassed it. There are countries that have been legislating or are contemplating legislating laws that forbid expressing some views. This is dangerous, in that it goes against the most basic and cherished element of a truly free society, that of freedom of speech.
Your book also serves as a critical reflection on the (formerly much stronger) peace movement in Israel. Is the peace movement dead?
They call it a “peace movement,” even though what Israel got by following their agenda was the opposite of peace. Their intentions were, no doubt, to bring about peace; but wishful thinking and a disregard for reality—which define their thinking—and a refusal to consider their critics’ positions, can never bring about anything good. In fact, all that their policies brought about was disaster.
The Israeli public realized this over time. No matter how much propaganda was foisted upon the public by the press, people could see for themselves that what we got from the Palestinians, after following the agenda of the “peace movement” and the Oslo Accords (when we gave Arafat control over large portions of the West Bank), were suicide bombings which caused hundreds and hundreds of innocent people to die. And then we saw that what we got after we pulled completely out of Gaza—once again, at the behest of the “peace movement”—was thousands upon thousands of rockets launched at our towns. Finally, we got the horrors of October 7.
October 7 caused many of those who were still following the precepts of the “peace movement” to realize the futility of making concessions to people who want to destroy them. Even so, the “peace movement” is not dead, nor will it ever be dead, because there will always be those who prefer fantasy to reality. Reality simply is often not an easy thing to live with.
As for peace itself, it is far from being dead. It can be achieved in the Middle East, but only through outstanding military strength and the willingness to use it, enabling the creation of a very powerful deterrence. Then there can be peace. I suspect that the same principles are true for other parts of the world.
The proposed judicial reform has divided Israeli society. Particularly in liberal Tel Aviv, Jews from around the world protested against the planned weakening of the Supreme Court. How do you explain the strong criticism of the proposed judicial reform in the Western and German media?
I explain it by ignorance in the West and in Germany as to what the reform movement in Israel was about. All it proposed was bringing Israel to a state similar to that of other democracies, where the judicial branch of the government does not have total control over the legislative and executive branches. What has happened in Israel over the past 30-some years is the gradual take-over of political decision-making by the judicial branch, to an extent unknown in any democracy in the world. Everything and anything political could be brought before the Supreme Court, which then went on to rule more according to its own wishes and values than according to the law or the view of the majority of the population. This, of course, runs counter to the basic principle of democracy, whereby the people, through their elected representatives in parliament, are the sovereign power: it is they who decide on political matters, not a group of judges who actually elect their own peers.
Because the Israeli Supreme Court’s agenda coincided with that of the Israeli political Left, the Left wanted their abnormal hold on power, through the courts, to continue, thereby maintaining their control of the country in spite of their electoral losses. And because the Western press, for the most part, is against Israel’s political Right, it took the side of the left-wing protesters, repeating their slogans without really understanding what it was all about.
How do you feel about statements like the one made by Jonathan Glazer, who won the Oscar for best international film and then claimed that Israel was “hijacking” the Holocaust to justify the occupation of Palestinian territories?
How does one respond to such idiocy? I’m not even sure where to begin. When, exactly, did Israel ever use the Holocaust in order to justify its control of portions of our ancient homeland—what Glazer calls “Palestinian territories”? If he means that we compared the events of October 7 to the Holocaust, then that comparison is entirely correct, since the aim of Hamas was, and is, the killing of all Jews wherever they are, which was also the aim of the Nazis. But I suggest we go on to other matters, and leave this poor Jew to continue to wallow in his pool of his anti-Zionist beliefs.
Hamas’ declaration of war united Israeli society. Does judicial reform still have a role at this point, and will its critics vote for it now?
Judicial reform certainly still has a role. Reform is imperative if we want to correct the many ills of Israeli society and achieve true democratic governance. But obviously, all that has been put on hold because of the war.
It’s hard to predict how things will turn out politically after the war, but I suspect that, with time, a compromise will be achieved regarding judicial reform. The reform will probably not be as comprehensive as I hope it to be but achieving at least something in this matter will be better than letting things remain the way they are.
You supported the Abraham Accords. Under the circumstances, is it still a realistic solution? Or is any peace an illusion in such a fragile area as the Middle East?
It is still very realistic. The problem of Iran and the danger it poses, which is the problem that in large measure brought about the accords, has not gone away. On the contrary, the problem is Iran, which is behind the attacks on Israel, carried out by Iran’s proxies on all sides: by Hamas in the east, by Hezbollah in the north, and by the Houthis in the south. If Israel emerges victoriously from all of this, as I am sure it will, this victory may very well enhance the possibility of reaching further agreements. In large measure, that possibility is contingent on the feelings of the populations of these countries, including those that have already signed peace agreements with Israel. It is possible that they might become so agitated by anti-Israel and anti-Jewish propaganda that their leaders might feel unable to go against their populations’ wishes. I hope this is not the case.
Until the attack by Hamas, a segment of Israeli society advocated peaceful coexistence as a permanent solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. To what extent have their views changed? And did the Left readily welcome the impact of reality?
Nothing is wrong with the concept of peaceful coexistence. The Israeli Right is advocating this as well. The question is how to achieve such coexistence. As we’ve seen, giving terrorists—whether it’s the PLO or Hamas, both of whom seek Israel’s destruction—control over a territory and a population in the heart of our tiny land is simply a recipe for further attacks. It is a danger to the very existence of the Jewish state.
