Dear Mr. Kaplan, We would like to set the record straight regarding the false and baseless charges by Ruth Moss-Katsnelson and the organization “Stand With Us” (SWU) – charges aimed at our documentary feature film “Valentino’s Ghost,” its interviewees, its funders, us, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The Center for Asian American Media, The National Educational Telecommunications Assn., and others. “Valentino’s Ghost” was positively reviewed and designated a Critics’ Pick by the film reviewers of . The film was also positively reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, The Village Voice, The American Conservative, The Hollywood Reporter, and numerous university scholars. However, Mrs. Katsnelson and SWU give the false impression that reviews of our film have been negative.

First, let’s examine Mrs. Katsnelson’s attack. Most notably, she does not provide evidence to back up her accusations. So it is difficult to infer what she is talking about. We will do our best. Viz: Mrs. K calls “Valentino’s Ghost” “… anti-Israel propaganda...” Our reply: Propaganda means information that is false, misleading or exaggerated. We know of no instance in the film where the content is false, misleading or exaggerated. What content in the film is “anti-Israel”? She does not provide any evidence to support this accusation. We examine some of Israel's less savory past, to be sure. But that is not an attack on the entire nation of Israel and its peoples any more than an examination of American slavery, or truth-telling about America’s invasion of Vietnam, is “anti- American.” The film presents factual history, and if a viewer feels affronted by this airing of Israel's dirty laundry, that is their problem, not ours. Like “anti-American,” the term “anti-Israel” is misleading, vague and irresponsible. One of the pillars of democracy is the freedom to criticize a government. The term is a bullying way of stifling discussion and debate regarding American foreign policy, Israeli policy and other important topics.

RMK: “The film distorts history, recycles factual errors, discredits American media, demonizes Israel and justifies Arab terrorism against the West." Our reply: Again, not a single piece of evidence for these charges. Only one of them is valid: the film does indeed discredit American mainstream media, and we are proud of that. But the rest of her charges are sound and fury. Where does the film demonize Israel? Again, it is difficult to respond to her provocative accusation, sans evidence. Further, the film does not justify terrorism of any kind. There is a vital difference between examining an action, and justifying or condoning it. Mrs. K does not recognize that. Her reprehensible accusation borders on defamation.

1 RMK: "Attached is a scholarly critique of this film.” Our reply: The document compiled by Stand With Us is not a scholarly critique. A scholarly work is not comprised of emotional non-factual statements, quotes from Wikipedia or quotes sourced from press releases. A press release is not a legitimate source of information. This SWU “critique” would not survive even the gentlest peer review.

RMK: “The most egregious error to me is to disguise one theme for another: that is, that the theme of “rehabilitating the persona of the “Arab” in American Media is being used as an opportunity to demonize Israel, and Jews." Our reply: Again, where is the proof? Serious, but baseless, smears without any evidence provided. To be charged with demonizing Jews (anti-Semitism) is a very serious condemnation indeed, and is an egregious form of defamation. Mrs. K would be well advised to either back up her accusation with evidence, or retract it. Tossing about such a charge is also irresponsible in that it diminishes the ugliness and dangers of actual, real anti-Semitism and of actual anti-Semites. The premise of the film is that distorted images lead to injustice. The film is not trying to rehabilitate the persona of the Arab. It is trying to educate well-meaning Americans about the racism and bigotry toward Arabs, Muslims and Islam that many Americans have been indoctrinated into believing is socially acceptable.

RMK: “By solely focusing on Israel as the cause of “9-11”, the film distorts history, as you can see that Israel is one factor, but not the only factor for Bin Laden’s terrorism." Our reply: Actually, it's the other way around: the film corrects a historical distortion. The vast majority of mainstream media outlets and politicians in America have avoided mentioning Israel as being a factor in the events of 9/11. That is the distortion that we call attention to.

RMK: Mrs. K quotes our interviewee John Mearsheimer: “The Jews ethnically cleansed large parts of Palestine….” and she writes, “The Jews?” Where is he going with this?" Our reply: In truth, Prof. Mearsheimer qualifies his statement when he says: "The Jews in the Yishuv…" To answer her rhetorical question, where Prof. Mearsheimer is going is here: the Jews in the Yishuv ethnically cleansed large parts of Palestine. To deny that is to engage in Naqba Denial. Naqba, meaning “The Catastrophe,” ie., the 1948 ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Jewish settlers in Palestine. Military documents declassified in Israel, such as The Hagana Archives and the IDF archives, along with David Ben Gurion’s diary, and the Central Zionist Archives, describe the strategic forcible removal of almost one million people to make way for Israel’s founding. Israelis forced Palestinians out of

2 their homes at gunpoint, or simply massacred them. This ethnic cleansing has been denied for almost six decades. See the Israeli historian Ilan Pappe’s groundbreaking “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” which references the declassified documents. Many people continue to engage in Naqba denial. Like Holocaust denial, the goal is to rehabilitate the past and devalue a people’s suffering.

RMK: Mrs. K quotes Skirball Foundation President Martin Blackman as labelling “Valentino’s Ghost” an anti-Semitic film. She writes, Mr. Martin Blackman told me that he was never made aware of the Skirball name being used in the film, “nor would they ever lend the Skirball name to an anti-Semitic film.” Our reply: Mr. Blackman has written to us, the filmmakers, and has never made any charge of anti-Semitism anywhere in his correspondence.

RMK: “In my opinion, using the Skirball name to gain credibility for this film is misleading, and requires further investigation. “ Our reply: Nobody is “using the Skirball name.” The Skirball Foundation granted considerable funds to the production of “Valentino’s Ghost” through a program overseen by the California Council for the Humanities. It would be journalistically irresponsible to hide Skirball’s generous funding. In addition, PBS standards require that major funds be identified on screen for any production which airs on PBS, as our film did.

RMK: “Paradoxically, the Olayan Group, which is affiliated with Saudi Arabia, and which was originally named on the film as a funder (I have it recorded on a VHS taped version of the movie) is no longer there.” Our reply: Is there something unethical about accepting Olayan funds? What is Mrs. K implying? That Arab money is tainted? Does she not know that Saudi Arabia is an American ally in the Middle East? How about Israeli funds for a Holocaust movie? Would she object to that?

Smears gain traction via evidence. Mrs. K does not provide evidence, because it doesn’t exist. Her “arguments” are at once specious and malicious.

3

REBUTTAL TO COMPLAINT FROM “STAND WITH US” RE-CAP: Our documentary feature film “Valentino’s Ghost” has come under attack by an individual and an organization in the past year. We feel it is important to set the record straight regarding the false and baseless charges by Ruth Katsnelson and the organization “Stand With Us” (SWU) – charges against not only the film but also its interviewees, its funders, us, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, The Center for Asian American Media, The National Educational Telecommunications Assn., PBS stations which aired our film, and others. Stand With Us (SWU) begins its accusations against “Valentino’s Ghost” by quoting from the New York Times review of our film, and attempting to establish that having an agenda is synonymous with propagandazing: “The film itself rarely rises above propaganda. As a New York Times review observed, ‘Make no mistake, this documentary has an agenda.’ ” Our reply: Every documentary film has an “agenda,” be it about national parks, Monsanto chemicals, the Holocaust, or Israel/Palestine. Our agenda is to expose the social acceptability of bigotry against Arabs and Muslims in mainstream American cultural products, and, in doing so, to deal in relevant historical facts while presenting the Biblical images of religious myths and historical cultural biases for what they are: the images of ethnocentric allegories and folktales. We disagree with SWU’s implication that an agenda, or a point of view, somehow minimizes the integrity of a documentary film, most especially when that agenda is to expose little-known or distorted truths, and/or to educate the public and speak truth to power. In fact, that agenda is the raison d’être of most documentary films. SWU omits the conclusion of the NYT review of “Valentino’s Ghost”. That review endorses our film as “an invaluable entry in the national dialogue on the subject [of the Middle East]” and its reviewers gave the film the prestigious designation “New York Times Critics’ Pick.” The New York Times would not vigorously endorse a film which it feels has an illegitimate or otherwise problematic agenda. Neither would The Village Voice, whose conclusion more accurately reflects almost every review of our film: “A crash course in history, politics and social science, Valentino’s Ghost is both sobering and illuminating, and its execution is thrilling.”

SWU claim: “A review of some of the film’s funders underscores the biased agenda driving the film. Sponsors include the Olayan Group, a Saudi-Arabian funded enterprise, and the Firedoll Foundation, a major contributor to anti-Israel groups such as the Palestine Solidarity Project and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP).” Our reply: The Olayan and Firedoll funders’ total contribution to “Valentino’s Ghost” constitutes less than 1% of our film’s budget. Further, what is the inherent implied problem with Olayan’s association with Saudi Arabia, which is a United States ally? Neither these two funders, nor the educational and arts foundations and other donors who provided the remaining 99% of our budget, e.g., The Skirball Foundation, The

4 Corporation for Public Broadcasting affiliate Center for Asian American Media, The California Council for the Humanities, Park Foundation, and others, influenced us in any way; nor did they ever attempt to enforce a bias of any kind. Nor an agenda. Regarding the term “anti-Israel”: Like “anti-American,” “anti-Israel” is a sweeping, irresponsible generalization used to imply an adversarial stance toward an entire country and all the people in it. One of the pillars of a democracy is the freedom to criticize a government. “Anti-Israel” implies anti-Semitism and is a bullying way of stifling discussion and debate. Stand With Us is a self-described “Pro-Israel” organization, indicating that in its view, there are only two stances with regard to Israel: Anti or Pro. We believe this is an oversimplified view which leaves no room for any critique of the Israeli government’s actions or policies. We see no validity in employing the labels “anti- Israel” or “pro-Israel”, any more than we endorse dividing the world into people who are either “anti-American” or “pro-American.”

Jewish Voice for Peace recently co-sponsored a screening we held for members of The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, and we are proud of that association.

SWU claim: “The film concludes by urging viewers to watch the pan-Arabic broadcast network Al-Jazeera … to get an image of the “true” Arab. According to many sources, Al-Jazeera has “a troubling record of providing a platform to all manner of virulent anti- Israel and even anti-Semitic extremists and of serving as a propaganda tool against the State of Israel.” Our reply: “Valentino’s Ghost” does not “urge viewers” to watch Al Jazeera. The film shows documentary footage of United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton citing the fact that Al Jazeera viewership is rising because, she says, unequivocally, Al Jazeera’s news reporting is superior to “ours.” For SWU to cite a single ADL Press Release as “the many sources” which regard the Al Jazeera news network as “anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic” is, well, sad. No press release issued by anyone anywhere can be considered a reliable source of factual or truthful information. SWU does not cite any other of “the many sources.”

SWU claim: “A-List film festivals in the United States have refused to screen the film, including Seattle, which outright rejected it.” Our reply: Festivals receive many thousands of submissions annually and it is their prerogative to choose what they screen. “Valentino’s Ghost” premiered at the oldest and most prestigious “A-list” film festival in the world: the Venice Film Festival. Where it received a standing ovation. It was also selected for six other film festivals, including the prestigious International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam, the world’s largest documentary festival, which also scheduled a rare 45-minute “Extended Q&A” session following the screening, indicating how important they felt the film was.

SWU Claim: “The film uses unreliable, extremist sources with no input from other, more mainstream sources.”

5 Our reply: Most of our “unreliable, extremist sources” are actually world-class and highly respected scholars with Ph.Ds from mainstream and prestigious universities. Nor do we accept the premise that the mainstream media is in any way more reliable than other media. Re Rabbi Weiss: why the objection to hear from an alternative voice? His statements are in line with the thinking of many liberal Jews, in America, Europe and in Israel itself. For example, Rabbi Weiss blows the cover on the Zionist “mantra” when he says that "A land without a people, for a people without a land" was totally false, and used to justify land theft. He’s right. A growing number of Jews worldwide agree. Rabbi Weiss’s iconoclasm should not preclude inclusion in “Valentino’s Ghost.”

Re University of Chicago Professor John J. Mearsheimer, Ph.D: He and his co- writer of “The Israel Lobby,” Steve Walt, Ph.D., are among the leading scholars in their field and occupy chaired professorships at the University of Chicago, and Harvard, respectively. Their book was on the NYT bestseller list and has been translated into 22 languages. They are both members of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. They travelled to Israel to talk about the book, which was given a lengthy and favorable review in Ha'aretz. Nobody can point to a single instance of either scholar ever saying or writing anything that is anti-Semitic. Critics have misrepresented what the authors said, for the purpose of asserting they had produced a new version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The book’s publisher Farrar, Straus and Giroux, one of the most distinguished publishing houses in the world, would have never published a book that looked anything like the Protocols. And the London Review of Books, a distinguished magazine, would have never published the original article if it was even remotely anti-Semitic.

Re “Anti-Israel columnist Robert Fisk:” Robert Fisk is one of the most highly regarded and award-winning British foreign correspondents. A Ph.D. in Political Science and a dedicated reporter and book author for more than 35 years, he is a distinguished student of geo-politics. Please see our statement above regarding the use of the phrase “anti-Israel.”

Re “George Habash is shown in glowing footage, without any context.” What is glowing footage? He’s a handsome man. Are we to show only stereotyped “ugly” terrorists? Also, Dr. George Habash is not, as SWU claims, a “source” in our film. A “source” in this context is an interviewee, such as John Mearsheimer or Robert Fisk. Rather, we present and contextualize one minute and 13 seconds of TV news footage of Habash, along with hundreds of other media clips we present

6 and analyze throughout the film. In terms of context, we actually label the late Palestinian activist Habash as an “Arab terrorist,” among other things. What Mrs. Katsnelson seemingly objects to is, that we let Dr. Habash (a Christian and a medical physician) speak his mind, without prejudice, as did the mainstream news media of that era. Presenting voices that are not mainstream is, in our opinion, an asset to debate and public education. So is breaking stereotypes.

SWU Claim: “Valentino’s Ghost” implies that European expansion into the Middle East in the late 19th and early 20th century disrupted peaceful, independent Arab states that existed before the arrival of European colonialism.” Our reply: No, “Valentino’s Ghost” states that Arab Jews and Arab Muslims lived in relative harmony, compared to and until the disruptive arrival of non-Arab Zionists. Such lies as the “Land without a people” mantra, are cover for the inhumanity of the Zionist agenda, which in our opinion is one of the most un-Jewish of movements, if one is to see historic Judaism as a religion of compassion, inquiry, honesty, morality, and egalitarianism, as we do.

SWU Claim: “The film’s map of the early 20th century, marked with today’s borders and nations, ignores that Middle Eastern nations, such as Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and others, did not exist until the demise of the Ottoman Empire, when the League of Nations carved out previously non-existent nations.” Our reply: Our film’s maps do not endeavor to cover the entire history of the world. SWU’s point is irrelevant. To correct a few historical errors in SWU’s claim: 1) The Saudi kingdom actually existed long before the British came in. 2) Iraq did not exist until the demise of the Ottoman Empire? Iraq actually has been in existence for thousands of years, called “Irak” or “Mesopotamia” since approximately 3,500 BCE and is commonly referred to as the Cradle of Civilization.

SWU Claim: “The film ignores how Arab/Muslim terrorists purposely craft historical events, which then shape Hollywood’s perceptions. Much of Arab and Muslim terrorism of recent decades has been staged theatrically precisely to capture media attention.” Our reply: The film does not ignore that point. In fact, interviewee Prof. Melani McAlister makes that very point and develops it. For example, she says: “The Palestinians actually began to want to bring their own national plight to the attention of the world. And, they did so through a series of plane hijackings in the 1970s, and other terrorist attacks that were designed to bring the attention of the world onto Palestinians: who are these people, and why are they so angry?"

7 And again: As America becomes increasingly involved in the Middle East, from supporting the 1982 Israel invasion of Lebanon, to developing a stronger and stronger alliance with Saudi Arabia, there are more attacks on the United States. These were events and activities designed to get the attention of the news media. That’s what the taking of the Embassy in Tehran was. Every night you saw those banners in English outside the Embassy. That wasn’t for the benefit of Iranians. That was for the benefit of American news cameras.”

SWU Claim: “An independent Palestinian Arab state has never existed.” Our reply: The idea of Palestine as a “state” rather than a “land” or “area,” is a relatively new phenomenon, as are ALL states, so technically, yes. But the gist of SWU’s statement is that Palestinian Arabs are relative newcomers. This is not true. The Arabs of Palestine have lived there for at least 6,000 years. They were the indigenous people, and they were ethnically cleansed by Zionists. SWU’s Naqba denial is understandable, given that this very propaganda has been preached by the Israeli Government to all Israelis and Americans for decades. And advanced by Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir amongst others (“There was no such thing as Palestinians.” 1969) For a more through examination of this topic, we refer SWU to the important works by Thomas L. Thompson, or Philip R. Davies, or Niels Peter Lemche, or Keith Whitelam’s “The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History,” or Ilan Pappe, whose “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” refers to recently declassified military documents, the Hagana Archives, and other original sources, reports, etc., describing the 1948 ethnic cleansing actions in detail.

SWU Claim: “The film denies Jews’ historical claim to the land of Israel.” Our reply: Which Jews? Sephardic (indigenous Jews?) Or European Jews? The film does NOT deny Sephardic Jews an historical claim to the land of Israel. However, it is an historical fact that European Jews immigrated onto Palestinian Arabs’ land. European Jews have no more of a claim to indigenous people’s land in Palestine, than European Protestants had to Native American land. To suggest otherwise constitutes a form of racist colonialism based on ethnocentric superstition. In any case, even today, historical claims abound to various pieces of land throughout the world. The Senkaku Islands are claimed by China and Japan; Kashmir is claimed by India and Pakistan. When it comes to historical claims, “might is right” could be the operating “morality.” The Jews in the Yishuv forcibly took Palestinian Arabs’ land. The Jews won. Both sides claim it.

SWU Claim: “This turns history on its head given that Jews are the indigenous people of

8 Israel…” Our reply: Whose history? Not historians’ history. Anyone at SWU who believes in the historicity of the Pentateuch narratives, will judge a fact-based empirical film like “Valentino’s Ghost” to be “incorrect.” We are interested in historical facts, not the Pentateuch narratives. Which Jews? Any historian will confirm that Arab Jews (“Sephardic”), not European Jews, are ONE of the ethnicities indigenous to the area that has historically been known as Palestine. So are the Samaritans, Christians, Muslims and Druze. This does not seem like a topic relating to our film. But nonetheless, our response to their statement is as follows: Does SWU mean Judeo-Christian Biblical “history”? And what is “given”? Given by whom? The narratives of the Pentateuch, e.g., Biblical stories of the Israelites, are parts of religious and tribal myths and folklore, like Adam and Eve, Jonah and the whale, Moses and the Red Sea, Abraham and Isaac, David and Bathsheba, God creating the world in seven days, etc. These wonderful tales are mythic and folkloric. They contain parables, and ethnocentric allegories. They are not designed to be taken literally, unless one believes the fundamentalist mullahs of certain branches of Evangelical Christianity. The indigenous people of the area called Palestine, were and are, Arabs, including Arab Jews. Not European Jews. Like the European Crusaders, European Jews are and were, foreigners. The idea of Palestine/Israel as an historic Jewish “homeland” is a mythical construct which became a political narrative that has taken hold in the Judeo-Christian public’s imagination (and history textbooks), and exploited to great advantage by European Jews. Like America’s “Manifest Destiny,” it is a cover for land theft.

SWU Claim: “The film implies that the Jewish state was created solely because of the Holocaust.” Our reply: Most historians agree that the Jewish Holocaust propelled, or was the catalyst for, the formation of Israel.

SWU Claim: “The film presents as fact the canard that the Jews ethnically cleansed Palestine during the 1948 War. In fact, Israel invited all Arabs within its borders to become equal citizens and 160,000 did. Palestinians became refugees because Arab leaders launched the 1948 War, and most Palestinian Arabs fled to avoid the fighting or at the urging of their leaders.” Our reply: The above is pure Naqba denial. As with Holocaust deniers, Naqba deniers such as SWU believe that these kinds of catastrophes don’t exist. Ariel Sharon had all references to the Naqba removed from Israeli school textbooks, and succeeded in creating

9 a whole generation of new Naqba deniers, SWU amongst them. To suggest that Arab leaders urged Palestinians to flee, is another lie told by Zionists and spread by those who wish to whitewash the area’s history, and hide the systematic and strategic well-poisonings, rapes and massacres of Palestinian Arabs by Zionist soldiers.

SWU Claim: “The film distorts Israeli leaders’ comments to prove that the country was intent on ethnic cleansing. The film quotes the first Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion, as stating, “We must expel the Arabs! Drive them out!” even though this quote is a total fabrication. The original text shows that Ben-Gurion actually stated the opposite, “We do not want to and we do not have to expel the Arabs and take their place …” Our reply: As previously noted, recently declassified military documents held in the Hagana Archives provide ample evidence that the European Jewish strategy for Palestine was to ethnically cleanse it. This fact is beyond debate. And the person who masterminded the ethnic cleansing of Palestine was David Ben Gurion. Again, read Ilan Pappe’s “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” for details and primary source documents.

SWU Claim: “No context is given for the 1967 War, leaving the impression that Israel was the aggressor. In fact, as even the UN acknowledged at the time, this was a defensive war that Israel was forced to fight. ” Our reply: We are not “leaving the impression.” SWU is making the inference.

SWU Claim: “The film blames Israel (through Mearsheimer) for the lack of peace, ignoring Israel’s repeated willingness to accept or offer territorial compromise and peace—in 1947, 1967, 1979, 2000, and 2008.” Our reply: Where does the film (Mearsheimer) blame Israel for the lack of peace?

SWU Claim: “The film invokes the canard about the power of the ‘Israel Lobby’ and its impact on American and Arab/Muslim terrorism. Mearsheimer states, ‘Our relationship with Israel is one of the main reasons that we have a terrorist problem. And the Israel lobby does not want that message to get out to the American people.’” Our reply: We stand behind Mearsheimer’s statement. We note that SWU does not dare to challenge it. If SWU would like to appreciate the enormous and intimidating power of the Israel Lobby, we suggest they attend the annual conference held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which is the largest most effective component of the Lobby. Even a fraction of AIPAC’s boasting should be enough to persuade SWU of the Lobby’s power. Regarding AIPAC, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz wrote, “My generation of Jews … became part of what is perhaps the most effective lobbying and fundraising effort in the history of democracy.” (Chutzpah, Boston: Little, Brown, 1991, p.16). A visit to AIPAC’s website shows the group proclaiming that “more than two-thirds of

10 Congress” attends its annual conference. AIPAC has proudly ruined the careers of many politicians who dared to challenge it. Paul Findley has written a book, They Dare to Speak Out (1985), describing a few such cases.

SWU Claim: “The film tries to draw a parallel between modern Arab terrorists and early Zionists who fought against British control after World War II.” Our reply: Correct, we draw that parallel. And stand behind it. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.

SWU Claim: “The American public deserves a balanced accounting of this subject instead of agenda-driven, dubiously-funded project.” Our reply: By “balanced”, SWU means an accounting that they agree with. Regarding “agenda-driven,” please see our note above which argues that every film has an agenda. Some filmmakers hide their agenda, others don't. PBS prefers filmmakers to create “the perception of objectivity,” realizing that true “objectivity” doesn’t exist. This rhetorical technique to create such a perception, sometimes artificially divides an issue into two parts, and presents “one side” and then “the other side,” lending an air of authority via ersatz objectivity. Most viewers fall for this technique because the agenda is hidden. British broadcasters, and the filmmakers of “Valentino’s Ghost,” prefer a more open technique which is to lay one’s cards on the table, making one’s agenda clear. The Oscar-winning documentary films “The Cove,” “Taxi to the Dark Side,” “Inside Job” and “,” amongst scores of others, also prefer this way. So do most media-savvy viewers. “Valentino’s Ghost” is not a “dubiously-funded project.” The Corporation for Public Broadcasting affiliate CAAM, The California Council for the Humanities, the Park Foundation, the Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, and the California Civil Liberties Public Education Program, which constituted the majority of our funds, are highly prestigious. Park, for example, funds the films of Ken Burns and Bill Moyers. Despite SWU’s smear, we maintain that the integrity of these funding sources is beyond reproach.

In conclusion: the world is changing quickly. The historical facts about Israel/Palestine, identified and recognized by Israeli historians and archeologists for decades, are finally arriving in laymen’s conversations. People who take the ethnocentric folktales, myths and allegories of the Pentateuch literally, will find their belief systems and geo-political views threatened by films such as “Valentino’s Ghost.” Although “Valentino’s Ghost” is about a great many other things, the above issues seem most urgent to Mrs. K and SWU. We wish they could appreciate our film for what it is. Please communicate our request to Mrs. K that she either provide us with evidence of the

11 alleged anti-Semitism of “Valentino’s Ghost,” or retract her accusation. In the United States, that charge constitutes defamation. We have no desire to engage further than that, with Mrs. K or SWU. In their double- barreled attack on “Valentino’s Ghost,” they are trying to censor the messenger. We realize that there exist great numbers of similar believers, who have political and social power, money, influence, textbooks and AIPAC. We will not be intimidated or subdued by them, or by anyone else for that matter. Yours sincerely,

Michael Singh, Director/Producer Catherine Jordan, Producer

Los Angeles December 21, 2013

12