Doc's Talk: Israel Bashing in the Israeli Movie World

Thursday, March 07, 2013

Israel Bashing in the Israeli Movie World

Isi Leibler
March 7, 2013
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=4535

It is a depressing reflection of our times, when many of us heaved a sigh of relief when neither of the two Israeli documentary Oscar nominations received awards.

In the current perverted environment, it has become a hallmark of left liberal political correctness to project Israel as a racist and colonial implant imposed on the Palestinian underdogs, even if that necessitates a distortion of reality.

In Israel, practitioners of the arts, especially film producers, are conscious that creating a work which besmirches their nation enhances their prospects of achieving global recognition. That, in part, explains why so many recent Israeli films with a social or political dimension designed for international consumption, have tended to be masochistically critical and demeaning.

What makes this even more bizarre is that in many cases, rabidly anti-Israeli films are subsidized by the Israeli taxpayer.

This was exemplified by the Israel bashing documentary “Five Broken Cameras” which depicts protests against the construction of the security barrier in Bilin without even a hint as to why a security barrier and checkpoints were required. It demonizes Israel’s administration of the disputed territories and portrays the IDF as cruel heartless tyrants whilst presenting Palestinians as noble underdogs.

It is co-directed by an extremist leftist Israeli who supports global boycott of his country and a hostile Palestinian, who had the chutzpa to demand that the government-subsidized documentary not be designated as an Israeli production.

Most Israelis would consider it the height of insanity for the government to fund and effectively bestow legitimacy to an enterprise engaged in a global campaign to defame, challenge its right to self-defense and delegitimize it.

The other Oscar nomination, “The Gatekeepers”, raises far more complex issues. Yet it is likely to inflict considerably greater damage to Israel’s standing than the cruder propaganda production.

This documentary, directed by Dror Moreh, is based on over 70 hours of interviews with five former heads of the Shin Bet from 1980 to the present, all of whom served the nation with distinction. We are unable to ascertain whether the extracts presented reflect fair and balanced views of the participants but, to date, none of them have protested that they were misrepresented.

The film unquestionably portrays Israel negatively. It is presented as a colonial implant and is replete with harsh denunciations of alleged torture, racial discrimination, targeted assassinations, needless violence and oppression in the disputed territories. It depicts cruel military commanders “winning the battles but losing the war”.

Avraham Shalom, one of the former Shin Bet heads, initially states that “with terrorism there are no morals” and any measure to save innocent lives is warranted. But towards the end of the film he remarks “we became cruel” and challenges the morality of current policies. There is even an obscene analogy between Israeli and Nazi occupation policies – implying that we practice genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid.

This extremely critical presentation raises other important issues. Without in any way detracting from their service in defense of the state, we are not obliged to treat these five former heads of Shin Bet as sacred cows. One is entitled to ask why did they remain silent in office and refrain from expressing such views until their retirement? If they felt so strongly about these issues why did they not resign?

There are surely serious questions of propriety involved when senior intelligence officers, upon retirement, become bleeding hearts and engage in publicly undermining the policies implemented throughout their career.

Particularly so, as this was not the first outburst of this nature by former Shin Bet heads. In 2003, four former Shin Bet heads publicly called for unilateral withdrawal. We are all conscious of the disastrous consequences which resulted when Ariel Sharon implemented their recommendations and uprooted the Gaza settlements. The territories ceded were immediately overtaken by Hamas and employed to launch missiles deeper into Israel.

However, my principal ire is directed towards Dror Moreh who, aware that his production could have major international impact, should at least have placed the alleged suffering and victimization of Palestinians in context and not dealt with such issues almost in isolation.

Moreh provided insufficient emphasis to the context of terror which obliges Israel to take tough steps to to defend the lives of its citizens. He should have laid greater emphasis on the swarms of suicide bombers targeting and murdering more than 1100 innocent Israelis during the Second Intifada; the genocidal hatred and calls for the annihilation of the Jewish state; the brainwashing of Palestinian children from kindergarten age upwards into believing that the highest Islamic objective is martyrdom by killing as many Jews as possible; the impact on a quarter of the Israeli population traumatized by 13,000 missiles launched against them between 2005 and 2012, obliging them and their families to spend much of their time in underground shelters.

He should have mentioned that Prime Ministers Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were rebuffed after they had offered 95% of the territories over the Green Line to the Palestinian Authority and that despite Prime Minister Netanyahu having imposed a 10 month settlement freeze and called for negotiations without preconditions, the Palestinians rejected all these offers.

Instead, Moreh used his documentary to repeat the mindless mantra “end the occupation”.

None of those interviewed suggested that terror would end if Israel withdrew from the disputed territories nor did they propose any constructive solution. They are fully cognizant that the vast majority of Israelis yearn to separate themselves from the Palestinians and have no desire to rule over them. But they realize that to do so unilaterally, in the absence of adequate security arrangements, would effectively be committing national suicide.

The fact is that Moreh produced a film with an agenda which, according to former IDF Chief of Staff and Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya’alon, amounted to a deliberate mission to promote a distorted Palestinian narrative demonizing Israel.

Moreh himself confirmed this when he explicitly expressed the hope that President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry and Defense Secretary Hagel would see his film and be encouraged to exert greater pressure on the Israeli government.

There were protests that the government is employing taxpayer funds to subsidize global anti-Israeli propaganda. Minister for Culture, Limor Livnat expressed reluctance to introduce what she feared could be condemned as political censorship. However she called on responsible film producers to exercise restraint, knowing the severe damage they can inflict on Israel in the war of ideas by pandering to the propaganda of our enemies. She also urged them to acknowledge the sensitivities of the thousands of Israelis who lost loved ones and suffered in the course of the Palestinian terror.

We all look forward to the day when talented producers emerge from our ranks who will create works displaying our extraordinary achievements to the world and that, despite being the only nation in the world under continuous existential threat, we remain a vibrant democratic state in this regional cauldron of Islamic tyrannies.

In the meantime, without implementing full blown censorship, we should find a means to bring an end to the lunacy of employing Israeli taxpayer funds to promote global anti-Israeli propaganda designed to defame the nation.

The writer’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com.
He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom
Some of my recent articles:
Germans Lurching towards Anti-Semitism (February 28, 2013)
Israeli Politics: On the Edge of the Precipice (February 27, 2013)
Netanyahu’s Political Cynicism will backfire (February 22, 2013)

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk