So tonight I watched yet another movie (hey, it's Spring Break), last year's Oscar nominee from Israel. It's very good. I can see why some have argued that it's anti-Israeli. But at the same time there seems to be a great big hole in that argument in that it's an Israeli who is arguing that such events are wrong and need to be exposed. And being willing to acknowledge one's side's own flaws, and wanting to atone for them, is not a minor matter - and something that I'd think many ardent supporters of Israel would say the other side does far too little of. But beyond that, personally, I think the focus of the film goes far beyond a story about Israelis, Palestinians, Lebanese or Christians. It's a film about soldiers, about their experiences and memories and feelings. And on that front I think it's a very fine movie.
And hey, who doesn't like something that brings more attention to OMD (in this case "Enola Gay"), right?
Posted by armand at March 16, 2009 11:40 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Movies"And being willing to acknowledge one's side's own flaws, and wanting to atone for them, is not a minor matter . . . "
You're right. Treason and anti-semitism are no minor matter.
Posted by: moon at March 17, 2009 09:37 AM | PERMALINKI was being facetious.
I've reached a point where I'm pretty sure it's impossible to criticize Israel in any way, shape, or form, no matter how constructively, to anyone who actually has any say in how things are done over there (and to be clear, best I can tell, in part for this very reason, America has zero say in what's going on over there, but will be held hostage by various lobbies if it in any way stops giving Israel the blank check it's had for nigh a generation). Seriously, providing Israel with the tools to defend itself, and whatever borders it decides that entails, is our only role, that and nodding and smiling while they go about precisely the things they decry when their foes do them.
It's never enough to say Israel has the right to be there (which I firmly believe) when that prefaces any sort of "but . . ." clause. And for as long as that's the case, we might as well just give up all pretext of discussion.
Sorry. This last "war," and the preposterous double-standard rhetoric used to justify it, pretty much wore out my patience for the foreseeable future.
While I don't know the politics as well as I ought, I'm pretty sure Lieberman's the wrong guy at the wrong time. Especially now that there's an administration that's a) more down to earth and cognizant of the inability to broker peace when one of the sides justifiably believes that the broker is utterly biased; b) presumptively more adroit diplomatically; and c) clearly interested in helping the parties reach a constructive solution. That's all going to be wasted if Lieberman stays true to form in his new role, and there's no reason to think he won't.
But then again, there's no evidence yet that Obama can actually break from the only truly bipartisan consensus of the past twenty years and actually, you know, suggest that Israel be held to account for anything, so maybe it's for the best. He'll take one look at Lieberman and decide that he shouldn't waste his time. And given the many pressing issues at hand, he probably shouldn't.
Posted by: moon at March 17, 2009 12:36 PM | PERMALINK