Benetton Redux

This is not a movie review, but an evaluation of a news story about a movie based in part on reviews by others who have seen it. I have no plans to watch this movie.

Wow! Right on the heels of posting about " Over-Humanizing the Enemy" comes this incredible news.

A movie about Palestinian suicide bombers had Tel Aviv viewers on the edge of their seats -- and some even found themselves empathizing with the two West Bank mechanics trying to attack their city [bold added].

The award-winning "Paradise Now [link added]," which tries to explore the motives of bombers and has been screened in other countries, is now in limited release in Israel, a country struck by 122 bombings that killed hundreds of people in the past five years of Israeli-Palestinian [sic] fighting.

The very premise of this movie succeeds in being even more tasteless than that old Benetton ad campaign that featured residents of another place known for its murderous inhabitants -- death row. At least Benetton had the good grace to "humanize" murderers who were already safely behind bars.

Although the film has no commercial distributor in Israel and its audience has been small there so far, I find it very disturbing to read the extent to which some Israelis exhibit such symptoms of the influence of modern philosophy as moral relativism, nihilism, and the common practice of context-dropping. All bold below is mine.

Some of those at a recent Tel Aviv showing praised director Hany Abu Assad -- an Arab born in Israel who lives in Holland [How ironic is that? --ed] -- for avoiding melodrama and for creating complex characters.

"You don't identify with one side more than another," said Esther Wiener, 50. "I understood the other (Palestinian) side. I saw human beings who are caught up in this quagmire. There is no right side and no wrong side." [moral relativism]

The film tells the story of two friends, Said (Nashef) and Khaled (Suliman), who are dispatched to carry out a double suicide-bombing and accept it as their fate. They shave their beards to blend into Israeli crowds more easily, pray and prepare farewell videos.

...

In the Tel Aviv showing, there were some snickers when a gun-toting Khaled interrupted the filming of his farewell video to tell his mother where to buy the cheapest filtered water. [nihilism and context dropping on several levels]

During a one-time showing at a Haifa art house several weeks ago, some viewers were on the edges of their seats during a scene showing the two protagonists about to be caught by Israeli soldiers as they try to sneak through a security fence.

"There was a lot of tension in the theater during this scene, " said Nashef. "I felt that the entire theater was with us, that they didn't want us to get caught [context dropping]. Then I felt that we had conveyed our message ... and it was a very strange feeling."

What message? That these bombers are "human beings"? The best that could be said on that score be like something from the following review:

[A]s a moderate American Jew, I felt it took as objective a position as possible. It does not push one side or another, but merely tells one story about two men chosen for a suicide bombing mission. I was concerned there might be an attempt to get the viewer to sympathize with the would-be bombers, but did not find that to be the case. Ultimately, the story leads you to sympathize with the families and friends of these men, demonizes those who have led them down this path, and simply humanizes the men themselves.

But many suicide bombers are adults. (And many of their families take pride in and profit from their murderous exploits.) The bombers must accept the idea that killing themselves and complete strangers is good. And note that although this viewer claims that the film "demonized" the terrorists' superiors that there is no evidence that the main characters were tricked into setting out on their mission.

And on the score of adult responsibility, let's recall a couple of salient points about the essay I blogged yesterday.

(1) [Some] continue to believe that to humanize and to empathize with violent students, professors, and terrorists is the only way to treat those who wish to do them harm. In fact, however, the old saw "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" applies. Without clear boundaries, and a sense of consequences, their behavior will spiral out of control until they injure themselves and others.

(2) [M]any would treat international terrorists the same way we treat domestic murderers: as sick people to be cured, without regard to the dignity of those they kill. In our attempt to be overly-tolerant and empathetic, we start to identify too much with the enemy (very much like those suffering from Stockholm syndrome) and start to dehumanize the victims of terror. Surely, the victims of 9/11 [and those of the "Palestinians" past, present, and future --ed] deserve more from us than that. As do the potential victims who might be saved by a more realistic, and less "nurturing," approach.

To "humanize" "Palestinian" terrorists is to forget the only important thing about them: That they pose a threat to the safety of innocent human beings. It is also to commit a grave injustice towards the victims of their predecessors.

Might there be anything of merit here? As far as I can tell from reviews, the film attempts to portray the battle -- all too frequenlty lost -- to choose not to commit the murders as a bomber faces what he is about to do.

At one point, the director attempts to show an ethical side to the bombers, when one of the men sees a young child and as a result does not board a bus. Yet this same bomber has no compunction about killing other young innocents. The director does not understand that morality relies on such principles as do no harm, do not take away someone's freedom (the victims of bombings have no choice), be fair, etc.

This kind of psychological battle could certainly be dramatic -- if you could stomach watching a film about someone who would kill (or even consider killing) -- someone you love. Furthermore, there is no mention of how well the film succeeded in "humanizing" the targets -- I mean victims -- of these "humanized" attackers. Or, for that matter, the IDF soldiers who have to defend their families and loved ones from such barbarians.

But the film is billed as a "plea for peace", so perhaps this is what draws its viewers. The same reviewer comments on this.

Yes, it is a good movie, but it hardly rises to the level of "a plea for peace". The actors find fault with Israel, but never look at their own behavior an how that has led to tragedy for all. It is the usual blame game, multiplied by 10. The constant refrain that all their troubles stem from the occupation, their inability to take any responsibility, left me feeling tired, bored, wanting more. Yes, it does show third world conditions and compares this with glitzy Tel Aviv. One could do the same thing in New York City, or Los Angeles, but suicide bombing is not the preferred way of moving ahead in those places. The characters are well drawn, but the story line relies heavily on propagandistic statements, many of which are absurd.

So the bombers are human beings, their potential victims props, and the whole terrible situation is all Israel's fault. Somehow, this fails to surprise me, and explains why all the effort at "humanizing" was spent on the bombers. What we seem to have here is a movie featuring exquisite craftsmanship being used to "humanize" and make us "understand"  depravity.

But even if this movie was about someone who realizes the error of his ways, renounces Islam, decides not to attack, and turns in the names of his terrorist cell to Israeli authorities -- which it clearly isn't -- it would likely be inappropriate because it would be a gross mischaracterization of its purported subject matter: what is going on in Israel today.

Believe it or not, the incredible level of evasion required on the part of the Israeli audience, who watched this movie while in the crosshairs, was not only matched, but exceeded by its creators!

Most of the movie was shot in the West Bank city of Nablus, a militant stronghold from where many of the bombers were dispatched. The conflict served as a constant backdrop -- houses demolished in Israeli army operations, the sound of airstrikes against Palestinian militants and large crowds waiting at army roadblocks.

Nashef said that at one point, Palestinian gunmen who feared militants would be portrayed in an unsympathetic fashion abducted the cameraman. Longtime Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat won the release of the cameraman, but the crew eventually left Nablus because the atmosphere was turning hostile, Nashef said.

To persist in making a film to "humanize" someone who would kidnap (or kill) you is, I submit, ostensible proof of the importance of ideas. Even in the face of hard evidence that the "Palestinians" respect the rights of no one, these filmmakers went right on crafting a propaganda film on their behalf!

This is precisely the point Ayn Rand had in mind when she would say that history is moved by the ideas men hold. And this is why I advocate greater acceptance of her ideas. They are a sorely needed alternative in a world being ripped apart by religious fanatics with the aid of today's leftist intellectuals.

-- CAV