1. Sulieman is not interested in the whole idea of zionism seeing as how he is Palestinian and is threatened by Israelis. He does, however, state that his humor is more towards an Israilie perspective.

2. Sulieman uses personal experiences and a constant set of notebooks to help him write a script. He is also very concerned about not censoring his own work. He states that his tastes don't have much to do with palestinian films but he is interested in Hou Hsia-Chen Antonioni in a self reflexive way. He says that he's not into the palestinian films by Youssef Chahine and Michel Khleifi because of the exotic representation though he does call himself a Palenstinian filmmaker.

** I couldn't get reserves to work for the second article, it's spotty sometimes. I'll try again soon.

Bov 16

1. Gideon Levy's problem with the politics lies in the portrayal of the war that the film presents. He feels it is to stylish and self-absored; not to mention about 20 years too late. He feels that this is a just a boo-hoo-look-at-me film since the jews weren't even the ones who perpetrated the massacre. Basically he doesn't like the idea that someone has other ways of showing a war that obviously had some impact on him. Nor does it address the anti-arab sentiments that existed during the massacre.

2. Hillels problem with the film is that it doesn't take into account many of the other things going on during this time. Not only was this war being fought on mulitple fronts, but there are also multiple groups of people involved for varying reasons. Because of this he also states that the film is one sided, especially in the comments about how the PLO was never mentioned and "palestinian" was rarely used.

3. I think it's pretty clear why each side is fighting against the others. Everyone wants to call that land their home and don't think that the other religions should share it. Add to that the bitterness that arises from conflicts past and you end up with a many thousand year conflict. The only thing I'm not sure if is what the christians were doing there and why no one else is louder about them being the ones who massacred those people (if i'm understanding it right.)
This whole war is bologna to me either way since they are pretty much only fighting over land and ideas (misguided ideas).

1. Nationalism has changed since the cold war because the globe just finished dealing with two world wars that were caused primarily by nationalism. The "imagined community" is what comes about when nationalism creates a nation that not only exists within geographical borders but exists in it's historical practices as well as the citizens visions of themselves. The new sense of nationalism is a good thing because it allows cultures to resist the influence of other cultures as opposed to the old sense of nationalism whose culture would be the one being forced.

2. -The continuous feeling of Exile and a need to return to the homelands
-To escape antisemitism and form a save haven
-The idea of modern nationalism which includes a feeling of self identification
It fits in with Andersons definition because Zionism was a movement to create not only national identity but also a geographical homeland.

3. Jewish identity and culture were expressed through diasporic experiences and the "men of letters" who were in charge of reviving the hebrew language and expressing their need for a homeland by creating symbolic texts of their culture (ie myths).

4. The assimilationists and the orthodox Jews were the other competing ideologies. Zionism had at its backbone the idea of the "new jew" that valued hard agricultural labor, a collective lifestyle as well as struggle with past hardships.

5. The films were made with government subsidies. Since these filmmakers were free from having to depend on the audience they were able to produce films that were more politically critical. In the 90s there was a movement towards personal, internal worlds that step away from the nationalist drama.

6. High culture began to shun nationalism while popular culture and nationalism became synonymous. The "art" films that won academy awards in America drew small crowds in Israel.

1. Gitai doesn't believe in objective images because he feels we see the world solely in subject imagery. Camper believes that switching from objective shots to point of view action shots in a single take aligns the viewer so they take the characters as the truth of war rather than just being a part of one. (Instead of seeing it as a war with soldiers we see them as soldiers in a war)

2. Camper uses the long take in the helicopter when we are shown the wreckage that cuts when the helicopter is hit by a missile.

1. Cultural Hegemony is when one social class rules over an entire society under the false pretense of mutual benefit. After the war Israel saw an influx of Jews from around the world while there was an overall movement towards industrialization. Along with this the Maipai party used their power to idealogically align the education system and the military to them.

2. Zionism is the overall movement towards the reestablishment of a homeland for Jewish people while a Sabra is a jewish person who was born in Israel. The woman represents the future of the state because she stays true to her values but isn't afraid to progress forward socially. She is shown as a harmonious balance between tradition and modernity.

3. The use of diaspora and Sabra characters in the film allows the Sabra to replace the negative stereotypes of the anti-semite eastern-euro jews with the positive idea of furthering Israel by fighting for it.

4. Instead of ceasefire agreements Egypt started a war of attrition against Israel that lasted with sporadic military conflicts until the next major war in '73.

5. The film Seige is about a widower who must break from from the social bounds that society put on her in marriage. Instead of becoming part of a group to fight a problem she must fight a society for her individuality.