Glasgow Film Theatre praised by pro-Israel lobby group over BDS vote
Caroline Turner, director of UK Lawyers for Israel said: 'We are pleased that the Trustees of GFT have decided to reject these endorsements. These campaigns were part of a central Palestinian boycotting organisation whose aim is the destruction of the Jewish State.
'The film theatre had upset many of its regular Jewish film goers by its boycott of Coca Cola products earlier this year, and the anti-Israel statements made by some of its staff.'
The BDS movement calls for a boycott of all Israeli goods.
The BDS movement was set up by 170 Palestinian civil groups in 2005 as a form of non-violent "pressure" on Israel and has gained worldwide support, often being compared to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa.
The collective has called on Israel to 'end its colonisation and occupation' of Arab lands, recognise the 'fundamental rights' of Arab-Palestien citizens of Israel, and 'respect and protect' the rights of Palestinian refugees.
Adherents of the movement advocate for a full economic and cultural boycott of Israeli goods and companies, and protest against international companies with close ties to the Israeli state.
Three members of the GFT's trustee board resigned in protest over the cinema's decision. A joint statement reads:
'We cannot in good conscience continue to serve on the board of the GFT. In addition to our concerns related to governance and decision-making processes, we are also deeply concerned about the attitude the GFT has shown toward our unionised workers.'
In February, Unite Hospitality union members, which make up 85% of front-of-house and cleaning staff at the cinema, announced they would refuse to serve Coca-Cola products due to the company's ties to Israel. This led to the removal of the brand from the GFT bar.
Coca Cola was among the products to be banned at the GFT (Image: PA).The theatre was hit with a legal threat after UK Lawyers for Israel wrote a letter to charity regulator OSCR alleging the boycott breached the cinema's 'charitable objects'. The complaint was ultimately dismissed.
In a statement published on Thursday evening, the charity said:
'As an independent charity, trustees are legally required to act in the best interests of the charity, and in line with its charitable objects which are, for Glasgow Film, principally to educate the public about film.
'To meet this obligation, we believe that all decisions, including those relating to ethical purchasing and programming, should be taken independently, and on a case-by-case basis, informed by robust internal policies and processes.'
The cinema's board also said that a full review of their 'ethical policies and practices' would be carried out, including the sale of products in their bar, and that the work of Palestinian artists would continue to be platformed.
UKLFI's Turner added: 'It is good news that the GFT is now considering ethical and inclusive programming and purchasing. We hope that their inclusive programming will also include Israeli films.'
The GFT board voted against endorsing the BDS movement. (Image: Newsquest) However, angry patrons hit out as news of the decision spread online Thursday night.
Ruth Gilbert, national campaigns chair for Living Rent, posted to X:
'This is pathetic and embarrassing. Against the will of your unionised staff, your customers, and members of your board, you can't even commit to the bare minimum of solidarity with the Palestinian people? Many will vote with their feet if you don't reconsider.'
Similarly, Emma Diamond remarked: 'So disappointed to read this, as a long term member & supporter I really hoped for better.
'It's not enough to pledge to platform Palestinian voices, what voices will there be left to 'platform' if this genocide continues.'
Andy Ashe added: 'Apart from the obvious ethical consequences, I think you have vastly underestimated your customers' commitment to Palestine.'
In response to the decision, campaign group Art Workers for Palestine Scotland said:
'We ask audiences, film-workers and partners, to email the Chief Executive of GFT Allison Gardner to make your voice heard and demand a reversal to this decision which undermines GFT's very reason for existence as an independent cinema.
"GFT directly benefits in numerous ways from the optics of screening radical anti-colonial films. We refuse to let them disguise their lack of ethics with a progressive veneer. GFT is publicly funded and we, the public, are here to assert that film is political. We will not back down.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
11 minutes ago
- NBC News
Columbia agrees to pay $200 million to restore funding cut by Trump administration
Columbia University will pay $200 million to the federal government to restore the majority of funding that was cut by the Trump administration over allegations it violated anti-discrimination laws. "This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty," acting university President Claire Shipman said in a statement. The Trump administration in March said it was canceling $400 million in grants to the school, accusing it of 'inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.' Columbia then agreed to a list of demands by the Trump administration, which some critics saw as a capitulation by the private university. Columbia said in the Wednesday statement that under the agreement 'a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March 2025 — will be reinstated and Columbia's access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored.' 'This includes the reinstatement of the majority of grants previously terminated by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Health and Human Services, renewal of non-competitive grants, the release of overdue payments on active, non-terminated grants, and Columbia's restored eligibility to apply for new federal research funding in the ordinary course,' the university said. Columbia and other universities have been targeted by the Trump administration over student protests over the war in Gaza, which some Republicans have said were antisemitic. "While Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing with this resolution agreement, the institution's leaders have recognized, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed," the university said in Wednesday's statement. Columbia said the agreement will establish a "a jointly selected independent monitor who will assess the implementation of the resolution." The $200 million, termed a settlement by the university, will be paid to the government over three years. It will also pay $21 million to settle investigations by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the university said. Student protests over the war in Gaza, which Israel launched after the surprise terrorist attack by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023, took place on college campuses across the U.S., including at Columbia. President Donald Trump campaigned on attacking those protests, and since taking office his administration has sought to deport some students who took part in pro-Palestinian demonstrations by accusing them of sympathizing with Hamas.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Recognising Palestine isn't a path to peace
The children of Gaza are enduring horrendous suffering. The control of aid has been restricted. Innocent lives have been set at nothing. Ruthlessness well beyond the terms of realpolitik has put hundreds of thousands at risk. The people responsible deserve global condemnation. But instead it seems they are to be rewarded. It is Hamas which is responsible for the suffering in Gaza. The terrorist organisation has, for years, used its thugs to control international development assistance to enrich its leaders and subdue the population. Its murderous – indeed, genocidal – intent was made manifest on 7 October 2023 when it unleashed an assault on innocent Israelis which resulted in the biggest single loss of Jewish life since the Holocaust. In many cases, Hamas fighters sexually assaulted their victims and gleefully celebrated their deaths. The organisation's leadership exulted in the slaughter and declared that if they could, they would kill and kill again until they had eliminated the Zionist entity. Since that attack, and the Israeli response, Hamas has demonstrated disdain not only for Jewish lives, but also Palestinian ones. By placing command posts in hospitals, putting children deliberately in harm's way and continuing to use food aid as a weapon against its own people, Hamas has shown they are not noble liberators but barbaric murderers. And the West's response to this butcher's bill? To give Hamas the political victory of recognising a Palestinian state. This week the chair of parliament's foreign affairs select committee, Emily Thornberry, was the latest MP to call for British recognition of a Palestinian state. She reflects the views of dozens on the Labour benches – and, it is feared, even the instincts of the Prime Minister himself. Later this month, France and Saudi Arabia will co-chair a conference that aims to obtain recognition of a Palestinian state. Last year, Ireland, Norway and Spain joined more than 140 other members of the United Nations in formally recognising Palestine's statehood. According to Thornberry, it is 'just a question of when' Keir Starmer does so. Before the Prime Minister contemplates any such step, he might do well to study the7 October Parliamentary Commission Report compiled by the UK-Israel All-Party Parliamentary Group chaired by Lord Roberts of Belgravia. To read it is to be reminded of who will cheer loudest if Hamas's atrocities are rewarded with diplomatic recognition. The people responsible for the indiscriminate massacre of 378 Israelis at the Nova musical festival, shot down as they were fleeing for their lives, will be jubilant once more. The terrorists who carried out the gang-rape and mutilation of female victims, filmed for the perpetrators' twisted glory, will rejoice again. The men who shot an unborn child in her mother's womb and murdered a 92-year-old Holocaust survivor before taking 250 men, women and children hostage will have new cause for celebration. The answer to such evil should not be the granting of global respectability but a determination to prevent such atrocities from happening again. That is what Israel, almost alone, is seeking to achieve. Its military campaign is based on the far-from-unreasonable desire to liberate the hostages and permanently eliminate the death cult of Hamas. For its troubles, it enjoys not sympathy and support but a wilfully blind campaign of condemnation. Recent reporting of Israel's continued distribution of food aid to Gaza has ignored the reality of aid distribution in the past, when Hamas would confiscate the support offered by the international community and use it to reward compliance and punish internal opponents. It is to the shame of some aid groups, and certainly of the United Nations' organisation UNRWA, that they made themselves the accomplices to this oppression. The reason Hamas has sought to disrupt, often violently, Israel's aid distribution is because it has been robbed of a tool of political control and a source of illicit finance. Israel's defence forces have made errors in this conflict, sometimes grievous ones. But there is a world of difference between the citizen army of a rule-bound democracy fighting a counter-insurgency campaign while seeking to rescue hostages in urban settings and a terror group that regards every innocent life lost as another propaganda win. Israel's actions in setting back Iran's nuclear weapons programme and obliterating Hezbollah's military structures have made the world safer. It has dismantled much, but not all, of the Hamas command structure. If it can further reduce the ability of Hamas to ever again conduct operations like 7 October, it will have also helped prepare the ground for a more sustainable future for the whole Middle East. A path to genuine peace relies not on the knee-jerk recognition of Palestine, but on the extension of the Abraham Accords. Saudi Arabian recognition of Israel and a broader partnership between pragmatic Arab states and Jerusalem would lay the ground for a future Palestinian state, guaranteed and supported by its Arab neighbours. If the leaders of the West truly want the best future for the Palestinian people, they will want Hamas defeated not garlanded. Choose the latter, and Islamists everywhere will know that in our hearts we are not prepared to defend democracy against barbarity.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
The best deer deterrent? Radio 4
Behind the latest push for recognition of a Palestinian state – even though there is no agreement of what it is that might be recognised – is a sort of impersonation of the story of Israel. Palestinian activists want their own Balfour Declaration. President Macron wants France and Britain to come up with their own Sykes-Picot agreement, but pro-Palestinian. You might think that the clamour would have been shamed into silence by the massacres and hostage-taking committed by Hamas on 7 October 2023. On the contrary, these have somehow empowered the mimicry in wilder and more horrible ways. The genocide, we are now told, is being committed not by Hamas, but by Israel's response. The 'concentration camps' are being set up by Israel in Gaza. And back here in Britain, where it might seem to the unprejudiced observer that anti-Semitism is now almost literally running riot, it is 'Islamophobia' which is being defined as an enemy so great that only one of our many religions must be protected by law, despite the cost to free speech. 'Zionists', by which is now meant Jews (note this change of nomenclature between the Hamas Charter of 1988 and that of 2017), are painted as the murderous classes, so Britain must be 'de-zionised'. Does David Lammy realise where his new rhetoric is leading him and his party? One reason why nothing gets done in this country is that bureaucratic power lies in delay. A business or a private individual needs to get on because his time is his money: the bureaucracy's time is our money, so it has all the time in the world. This is an acute problem in relation to payouts for infected blood, the Post Office scandal etc. A faithful reader, Keith Miles, has an idea. Reverse the process, he says. Force the civil service to pay out £1 million to each acknowledged victim within three months unless it can be proved in that time that the money is not owed. Then the boot will be on the other foot. On Monday, the House of Lords agreed that the bill to remove all hereditary peers from the House of Lords 'do now pass'. The thing will not be complete until the Commons has considered amendments in September, but the death sentence has now been pronounced on the practice of more than 700 years. One or two speeches noted the melancholy historical significance of the change. The House is becoming a rump, though admittedly a large one. But I was interested by a rather more basic point made by the departing Earl of Caithness. When he had first taken his seat 50 years ago, he said, the daily allowance for attending the Lords was £4.73, which is £105.14 in current values. After Labour got rid of most hereditaries and brought in more of its own appointments at the turn of this century, the allowances 'increased hugely', the maximum daily allowance going up by 50 per cent. Today, peers can claim an allowance of £371 a day. As many of us have complained, Labour is jettisoning the hereditaries without reforming the Lords on a new basis, but I think we can be perfectly confident that, as it becomes predominant there, the allowances will rise higher still. The Nationwide, by far the country's biggest building society, is trying to be like a bank, and its customers are unhappy. Its chief executive, Dame Debbie Crosbie, earns £7 million a year and board candidates proposed by its members never get chosen. I suspect the members' fears are well founded. In the market town near us, all the high-street banks have closed, but the Nationwide branch continues. I go there from time to time because my mother is now too frail to manage the journey and so I transact her Nationwide account for her. My visits have impressed me with the social utility of the place. Almost every customer is either old or, like me, acting on behalf of the old. There is a lot of fiddling with spectacles and hearing aids and struggling with forgotten passwords. Old ladies try to sort out their late husband's financial affairs or transfer money to their daughter in New Zealand. Everything moves slowly. The staff are completely patient and, unlike the computer, very rarely say no. I can see why Dame Debbie might feel she has bigger fish to fry. And I agree with the members who therefore suspect her. What is a building society building by paying £7 million to anyone? In the early 1970s, I used to stay with a schoolfriend whose parents lived in Old Church Street, Chelsea. In the same street was the rectory of Chelsea Old Church which was, believe it or not, occupied by the rector, and parish children could play in its two-acre garden. Not long afterwards, the Church Commissioners sold it off. Now it is offered for sale by its non-dom owner who is fleeing the Reeves-Starmer Terror. The reported price is £250 million. I sometimes wonder if anything has done more than house prices to damage our social fabric. Although for professional reasons I feel I must sometimes listen to the Today programme, I almost never listen to anything else on Radio 4. This is a wrench for me since it was the staple of my parents and my boyhood but, like so many, I cannot stand being preached at. However, I keep in touch with the station because my wife has erected a sort of alarm to keep deer out of our garden. As the fallow or roe jump in, they trigger a burst of whatever is playing on Radio 4. My sister's partner uses the same contraption in their garden, but he tunes the alarm to Radio 2 and has much less success in frightening off the marauders. I wonder why. When I go past the alarm myself, setting it off, I do notice that most snatches of dialogue are, even now, conducted in the tones of educated men and women. Perhaps the deer are more in awe of voices 'born to command' than of popular songs.
