For me it started with the article by Debbie Schlussel in the FrontPage magazine. Let’s not mince the words – the article is a hatchet job, and a very thorough one to boot. Debbie has definitely gone overboard, trying to judge the movie as if it were financed by the Israeli Tourism ministry and should have been focused solely on the Jewish motives. That bit of criticism really cracked me up:
And don’t forget Wall Street Journal reporter Steve Levine, played by Gary Wilmes, the most stereotypically Jewish-looking actor they could cast – a living embodiment of the angst-ridden, sweaty big-nosed, glasses-wearing Jew you’d find in “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” picture book for kids.
I have even taken the trouble to look up the poor guy’s picture. I am not sure that Gary Wilmes is that living embodiment mentioned above, but it is clear that he will have to consider an investment in some major plastic surgery now.
But after looking up some stuff on Debbie’s site, I think I have caught the drift. It seems that Debbie is sometimes slightly overexcited (all for the good cause, no doubt), like in this case, for instance:
Then, there is this BS:
In Palestine, Jewish terrorist attacks finally persuaded the British to pull out.
WRONG again. The Brits pulled out, if anything, because they were tired of Islamic/Arab violence (there was no Jewish violence against the Brits) against British soldiers, and because eventually the land was carved up into Israel, Jordan, etc.
Ah well, as I said, it is all for the good cause, and anyway history these days is a flexible science…
But… Saying all this, there is more to Debbie’s article than meets the eye. Of course, there is no place to criticize Winterbottom, Julie and Pitt for focusing on Mariane Pearl and the chief of Pakistan’s counterterrorism unit. After all, it is their movie and their license.
But blaming the barbaric execution of Daniel Pearl on the misdeeds of US in Guantanamo is pure unadulterated bullshit. The list of kidnappers/murderers demands includes the one re Gitmo prisoners indeed, but read it in its entirety:
We still demand the following:
- The immediate release of U.S. held prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
- The return of Pakistani prisoners to Pakistan.
- The immediate end of U.S. presence in Pakistan.
- The delivery of F-16 planes that Pakistan had paid for and never received.
We assure Americans that they shall never be safe on the Muslim Land of Pakistan.
And if our demands are not met this scene shall be repeated again and again…
It is quite clear that the absurd list was never intended as a base for negotiations and that its sole purpose was to increase the publicity for the planned act of murder. The fact that Winterbottom, Julie and Pitt made Gitmo a focal point of the movie is telling.
Another salient point in the article – disregard of the fact that Daniel Pearl is Jewish. As noticed here:
…something could have been inserted about Daniel Pearl, a man from a family with deep Israeli roots — scenes and sentiments that would make him a real person who once lived, loved, and later died a horrible death, publicly.
It is not certain that Daniel’s fate was sealed by the fact of his Jewishness, but it is certain that the fact did not escape the attention of his murderers and they obviously enjoyed it. The title of the execution clip – “The Slaughter of the Spy-Journalist, the Jew Daniel Pearl” is sufficient testimony.
The royal pair of Hollywood is definitely way above their heads into politics. Not that it makes them outstanding, many other Hollywood stars and mega-stars have discovered the politicking as a new and glamorous pastime. But the mix of the mega-star popularity, naivety, good will and ability to dumb down any complex issue to a set of childish slogans has a definite impact on general population. Here is one example of a rave review by a groupie:
…without apology, it is simultaneously an unabashedly political vehicle that does not fall victim to sloganeering or jingoism, as well as an effective and gripping re-telling of a story that is still fresh in the minds of the audience. I know a lot of people are criticizing the movie.. but the best thing about this movie was it does not points finger on anyone.
Yep. An unabashedly political vehicle that does not “points finger on anyone”, indeed…
But the best expression of the above mentioned Hollywood mix is provided by the royal pair:
The hero of this movie is a Muslim Pakistani Captain . . . . Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish–they all came together, all of them becoming great friends.
Why, indeed, can’t we all get along and be friends? I really don’t know. Maybe because there are too many gently smiling folks like this one:
I really recommend this clip as a mandatory viewing. Notice that the person that appears in it is an American resident and knows his rights exceedingly well. It is also worth your while to visit his site at _http://www.al-buruj.com/_ to get an in-depth understanding of the creature. And the ideology that moves him and his ilk, making it kinda difficult to make friends with him.
But don’t tell Brangelina about it – it may distress them, possibly on a shooting day, and then the damage to the world will be immeasurable …
Hat tip to Bagel Blogger.
Cross-posted on SimplyJews.
I looked at his site, and then I remembered who he was. This is the former Chasidic Jew who converted to Islam a few years ago. And his wife and kids followed along. I’ve seen him on video before. He’s a lunatic. Judaism is better off without types like him. “Fervor of the convert” doesn’t even begin to describe him. He’s bloodthirsty.
If you ask me, Joanne, this planet could be much better off without types like him.
Cheers.
Sorry, I should’ve been clearer. My last comment refers to the Muslim guy in the video included towards the end of this post.
My next point concerns Debbie Schlussel’s statement that “the Brits pulled out, if anything, because they were tired of Islamic/Arab violence (there was no Jewish violence against the Brits) against British soldiers.” I am glad, Meryl, that you pointed out her excesses. It’s not that you’re so right wing, but it’s just nice to see you someone saying to a right-winger, “hey, that’s going too far.”
This kind of overstatement does nothing to help Israel or those who support her. Quite the contrary, it only hurts our credibility. Sure, the anti-Zionists do the same ten times over, but we cannot afford to give them any ammunition. And the mistake Schlussel makes here is an egregious one. Everyone knows about the Irgun, about the King David Hotel, and so on.
This kind of writing also does not help the reputation of bloggers in general. Of course, the web is limitless, and enforcement of standards practically impossible. It is inevitable that there’d be dreck out there. But if you put dreck on web sites that purport to be serious, the web as a whole will get the same reputation as am radio.
Yes, Snoopy, you’re right. He’s no great gift to humankind in general. Surely he’s not good for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, et al. Come to think of it, types like him aren’t much good for Islam, either.
I cannot figure how his wife followed him along. She must be very much in love with him, or a dimwit, or both. How could they switch from one all-encompassing, life-defining belief system and way of life to another, and do it so fast?
On the other hand, sometimes people who are followers are just that…followers. They want any kind of firm, unthinking system of belief that makes them feel right and secure. My brother had a close friend who for years was a Communist and made a big deal of it. Then, all of a sudden, he switched to being a right-wing conservative. As proof that things were much better for the poor in India (this was the early 1970s) he showed me a letter from his girlfriend, waving it in the air as if it were proof positive. I was just a kid, but I stared at him with disbelief at his stupidity.
Then he moved on. He briefly returned to his Jewish roots…for about a month. Then I believe he tried Christianity for awhile. That apparently didn’t work. He finally ended up joining the Hari Krishna sect, living in a monastery in San Francisco. And there he stayed for years on end. For all I know he’s still there. He won’t do any harm, nor would he support anyone who does. But, still, you have to wonder.
Maybe we’re lucky. If Judaism keeps on losing loonies like these, the tribe will only be stronger for it.
Joanne, Snoopy wrote this post, not me. But I agree with it. Debbie Schlussel doesn’t get a pass from me when she uses polemics and half-truths.
Let’s just say she’s not on my list of must-reads.
Agreed, Joanne. Of course, it would be vastly preferable for the tribe to find a way not to produce the loonies at all, but this is probably impossible at this stage.
We seem to agree with everything, incl. Debbie’s oversight, so the only remark I can make is that Meryl did not criticize Debbie (in this post, at least) – the guilt is all mine.
Oops, sorry for the wrong attribution, Snoopy. In any case, it seems that we all agree here. What a nice state of affairs!
By the way, Snoopy, it would indeed be preferable to not produce the loonies in the first place, especially since some of them (Chomsky, Shahak, Finkelstein…) have had the influence to do us a lot of harm. But I think it’s an occupational hazard for any people that adheres to a tradition of free speech and lively intellectual inquiry.