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).
No comments:
Post a Comment