Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
Costa-Gavras critically depicts US actions and policies in his films, but when he tries to address Zionism and the State of Israel, he falls into a Zionist framing of the discussion.
Hanna K.: Liberal Israeli or Ashkenazi American Fantasy Film
4 min 12 sec - Oct 9, 2007
Because the film concedes the possibility that aspects of Zionism might have morally problematic effects, major public controversy accompanied general distribution. The clip shows Hanna, the prosecutor and the judge as they attempt to find an extra-juridical solution to the problem that the defendant presents. Note how the judge makes the usual irrational and unethical Zionist arguments to justify Zionism while he uses the usual psychological triggers about the Nazi persecutions to intimidate Hanna into accepting his viewpoint.
Hanna K. like Torn Apart [1](1990, Warner Studios) and Double Edge[2](1991, Faye Milano Limited Partnership) represents a sort of Liberal Israeli or Ashkenazi American fantasy, in which the Zionist heroes really are moral people that strive to overcome obstacles and do right in difficult situations. Such movies do not address the possibility that Zionism might be fundamentally ethically questionable. The depiction of Palestinians in these films corresponds to fantasies about Palestinians from Zionist narratives or propaganda and not to any sort of discernible reality. While individual Israeli settler colonists may be obnoxious or defend themselves violently in the course of the plot, only Palestinians ever commit crimes or aggression in this class of film.[3]
Notes
[2] Double Edge is a sort of remake of Hanna K. An American female reporter replaces the Israeli female lawyer. Double Edge eliminates practically any suggestion that aspects of Zionism or the State of Israel might be questionable while Palestinians become unequivocally the bad guys. Double Edge eliminates the distracting subplots that confused the main issues of Hanna K. I almost wonder if the distractions in the story of Hanna K. were purposefully designed to blur any serious confrontation with basic Zionist principles and the nature of the Israeli state. In contrast with Hanna K., Double Edge required no similar obfuscation because it was much more straight Zionist propaganda.
[3] Both Torn Apart or Double Edge count more as Israeli than as American movies because the directors, screenwriters, production venue and most of the actors were Israeli.
4 min 12 sec - Oct 9, 2007
Hanna K. (1983, Universal) is fascinating because of the timidity that Costa-Gavras shows in portraying ethically dubious Zionist beliefs, actions and behavior. The movie depicts problems in the life of an attorney loosely modeled on Felicia Langer. She is defending a Palestinian infiltrator. According to its own internal documentation, the IDF usually simply 
shoots unarmed infiltrators, but the director and writer uncritically accepts the Zionist viewpoint that Israel actually has a functioning legal system and that Zionists actually make effort to deal with difficult ethical questions as well as they can.[0]
Because the film concedes the possibility that aspects of Zionism might have morally problematic effects, major public controversy accompanied general distribution. The clip shows Hanna, the prosecutor and the judge as they attempt to find an extra-juridical solution to the problem that the defendant presents. Note how the judge makes the usual irrational and unethical Zionist arguments to justify Zionism while he uses the usual psychological triggers about the Nazi persecutions to intimidate Hanna into accepting his viewpoint.
Hanna K. like Torn Apart [1](1990, Warner Studios) and Double Edge[2](1991, Faye Milano Limited Partnership) represents a sort of Liberal Israeli or Ashkenazi American fantasy, in which the Zionist heroes really are moral people that strive to overcome obstacles and do right in difficult situations. Such movies do not address the possibility that Zionism might be fundamentally ethically questionable. The depiction of Palestinians in these films corresponds to fantasies about Palestinians from Zionist narratives or propaganda and not to any sort of discernible reality. While individual Israeli settler colonists may be obnoxious or defend themselves violently in the course of the plot, only Palestinians ever commit crimes or aggression in this class of film.[3]
Notes
[0] Jack Shaheen in Reel Bad Arabs considers Hanna K. one of the best Hollywood films in addressing the Israel-Palestine question. He may have been distracted by the controversy associated with release and distribution. I find the misrepresentation of the treatment of Palestinians by the IDF and the Israeli legal system perhaps even more disturbing than unmitigated Zionist propaganda would be.
[1] Torn Apart is a sort of Israeli Jewish male fantasy of a pliant Arab maiden. It is loosely based on Romeo and Juliet. Cynthia Peck, the daughter of Gregory Peck, plays the Palestinian Juliet.
[1] Torn Apart is a sort of Israeli Jewish male fantasy of a pliant Arab maiden. It is loosely based on Romeo and Juliet. Cynthia Peck, the daughter of Gregory Peck, plays the Palestinian Juliet.
[2] Double Edge is a sort of remake of Hanna K. An American female reporter replaces the Israeli female lawyer. Double Edge eliminates practically any suggestion that aspects of Zionism or the State of Israel might be questionable while Palestinians become unequivocally the bad guys. Double Edge eliminates the distracting subplots that confused the main issues of Hanna K. I almost wonder if the distractions in the story of Hanna K. were purposefully designed to blur any serious confrontation with basic Zionist principles and the nature of the Israeli state. In contrast with Hanna K., Double Edge required no similar obfuscation because it was much more straight Zionist propaganda.
[3] Both Torn Apart or Double Edge count more as Israeli than as American movies because the directors, screenwriters, production venue and most of the actors were Israeli.
Sphere: Related Content
6 comments:
I had read that the Russian Talmud was changed by Zionist and names Arab/Muslims as the ultimate enemy. That is why they (Russian Zionists) are so extreme.
Some government censors in Europe forced references in Jewish texts to Esau to be changed to references to Ishamel because Esau was assumed to be a code word for Christianity. By the late 19th century uncensored texts were commonly available.
Most Zionist leaders were not big readers of Jewish texts except for those that like the Bible could be sliced and diced to support Zionist ideology.
Why is it nobody (almost) ever questions the essence of the problem: the very establishment of UN Resolution 181 and the taking of Palestinian lands for the European Khazarian Jews?
Even if the alleged holocaust happened, which I personally doubt, how does anyone justify the stealing of Palestinian land? What were/are they thinking?
I just don't understand.
Help me out here Martillo, I read what you and others say about some of these issues you raise and I'm convinced. Then I read stuff like this and have to scratch my head.http://www.aish.com/societywork/sciencenature/Jewish_Genes.asp
What is a liberal white boy to believe. Other than their murderous activities in Palestine I have nothing against the Jews (who ever they may be) But if these people claim to be related to Jesus and really are not this is really going to piss me off.
Especially since I think you have mentioned before that Jesus was more or less a Palestinian.
It is an old study. Dr. Qumsiyyeh and I have already debunked it.
Hammer et. al incorrectly used self-identification of ancestry.
The comparison populations were cooked, and the conclusion was unjustified because we can only speculate on the genetic make-up of the ancient Israelite/Canaanite population.
When I looked at the mathematics, Hammer's study did much better with the assumption of a Slavo-Turkic founder population exporting people to various Jewish communities that lived in Europe and Islamic world and that had no common ancestry.
In http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/10/origins-of-modern-jewry.html, I write the following.
This article seems to conflict with genetic anthropological studies of Hammer, Oppenheim and similar people but these studies are severely flawed as Dr. Mazin Qumsiyeh and I point out in http://tinyurl.com/3e4xby . A recent article by Talia Bloch in the Forward ("One Big, Happy Family," Aug. 22, 2007, http://www.forward.com/articles/11444/ ) indicates that even some of the most extreme Zionist genetics researchers are beginning to concede that ethnic Ashkenazim are a separate ethnic group distinct from other Jewish groups except insofar as members of ethnic Ashkenazi communities or related Eastern European and Southern Russian populations have been exported to non-Ashkenazi communities in the past.
Okay I read the referenced articles and am a believer again. I'm even linking to you in the following post. http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/03/sasha-cohenis-borat-really-act.html
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.