Culture
Anti-Semitism now
Irit Linor
Published: 07.02.06, 15:01
Comment Comment
Print comment Print comment
Back to article
116 Talkbacks for this article
1. and Ms. Linor is an Israeli LEFTIST !!
(02.07.06)
2. Every judge on the Osar awards committee should read this
(02.07.06)
3. Nazism?!
Sara ,   Jerusalem   (02.07.06)
So the arguement is this: 'PN' is anti-Semitic because one of the few Jewish-Israeli characters is (in Lapid's mind) "ugly." Nevermind that a) the (Jewish) child on a bus is so innocent ly adorable that the would-be suicide bomber aborts his mission; b) that the (Jewish) Israeli soldiers on the bus in the final scene are pretty good-looking; c) that the average person from Nablus will never see "normal" Israeli (Jews) because they are not allowed to leave--which is why the film only includes a handful of Jewish characters. Part B of Lapid's argument is that the claim that settlers use poison is somehow anti-Semitic. A quick look at any number of human rights websites will reveal that this claim is backed by ample testimony. Part C of the argument is if you don't demonize Palestinians, you are anti-Semitic. I can't begin to pick this one apart. I would argue that the film humanizes Israelis and Palestinians--something Nazis would find very unfamiliar.
4. Sara - Jerusalem - You didnt understand much
(02.07.06)
No surprise there. Check who wrote the article again!
5. Over 600 enthusiastic responses in the Hebrew site!
Tahl ,   Israel   (02.07.06)
Myself included. Irit, you're a national asset! This article is simply spellbinding!
6. #3 - "Sara", or perhaps, "Salema"?
Tahl ,   Israel   (02.07.06)
No Jew in her right mind would make such a strong advocacy in favor of such anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish film. Just as you've mistaken the name of the writer to be "Lapid" instead of "Linor", apparently you've mistaken your own name as well.
7. apologies to Lapid
Sara ,   Jerusalem   (02.07.06)
but none for Linor
8. #3: nice retort, but it wasn't Lapid who wrote this article!
Budd ,   Seattle, WA, USA   (02.07.06)
9. Heart of Darkness
Logic ,   Israel   (02.07.06)
My guess is that the title "Paradise Now" is a snide little homage to the film "Apocalypse Now" (which interestingly enough, was based on Joseph Conrad's book "Heart of Darkness." ) Ironically, Heart of Darkness deals with the idea that humans who live without external contraints (the law) and without internal controls (morality & ethics) will act like beasts - which is exactly what Islamofacism and sucide bombers are all about.
10. not "statistics", but "minor players"
bubu   (02.07.06)
11. NOT ANTISEMITIC
(02.07.06)
Please, jews STOP with this name calling- I saw the film and it was the PAlestinian PERSPECTIVE_ is that a CRIME? to see the situation from their view point? it gave greater understanding to why they dont like the zionists in Palestine.
12. Who says I'm Jewish?!
Sara ,   Jerusalem   (02.07.06)
And who's Salema? Last I checked you didn't have to be Jewish to live in Jerusalem or be called Sara. But what does my identity have to do with my post, the review, or Paradise Now? Are you incapable of seeing past my name to actually comment on the substance of what I wrote (or Linor for that matter)? And Anonymous #4--tell me exactly what I "don't understand."
13. I WANT THE OSCAR TOO!!!
SimiNice bin laden ,   Zero ground, NY   (02.07.06)
14. 12 -I'm relieved you're not.
Tahl ,   Israel   (02.07.06)
As for the little "substance" of your post: Part A: Great, the baby is cute and the soldiers are hunks. Is it enough to outweigh the horrible, Goebels-like stigma emanating from the despicable Jewish mercenary, selling his people's blood for cold cash? Hardly. Second, the baby's cuteness only serves the director's false propeganda - showing how the homicide bomber is supposedly "human". I don't recall the monster who detonated herself in a Haifa restaurant expressing the same humanity, when she intentionally approached the babies before blowing herself. Part B: This piece of libel, backed by supposed "human rights" Israel-haters worldwide, and analogous to the blood libels against Jews in Europe during the black plague, is pure hogwash, unworthy of any serious comments. Part C: Have you carefully read Linor's article? Linor was clarifying how any humanification of the act of murder against horrrendously unbearably evil - can be compared with the Nazi ideology. The film de-humanizes Israelis, and humanizes their murderers.
15. There is NO EXCUSE for terrorism
Michael U ,   SF,California   (02.07.06)
Im sorry... I must disagree with those apologists who have posted here. There is NO EXCUSE to kill innocent people. PERIOD! This movie glorifies those who waste their lives and aim to kill innocents. These people are barbarians by any measure of the word. There is no glory, no martyrdom, no heaven for these scumbags. One would have to be very, very sick in the head to even watch this mindless propaganda. Sara, why are you so evil? Why do you thrive on the death and destruction of innocent people? Are you capable of redemption? Please change your path, you are certainly on the wrong path, dear... I dont understand why people want to know what goes on in the head of the psychopathic serial murderer. I don't want to know what goes on in the ratlike mind of the suicide bomber. Michael U
16. Irit you're right 100% !!!
Jenifer ,   TEL-AVIV ISRAEL   (02.07.06)
Thank you Irit for your true and clever article, how blind can people be !?
17. to "sara" #3
Dr. Doctor   (02.07.06)
part 1 of your argument cannot be understood. what are you saying? please explain. part 2 - about the poison. name one palestinian who died of poisoning. HR websites also tell us that israel killed arafat and that the idf is using uranium enriched bullets... come on. go and see the work of CPT or ISM and understand the they are SO biased, that no comment of them can be taken seriously. about part 3 of your argument - where did you read this? between the lines? comments about articles should relate to text, not what you believe is text.
18. Amazing, cut and save forever.
(02.07.06)
19. HOLLYWOOD AND MORALITY.
DEBRA ,   USA   (02.07.06)
HOLLYWOOD DOES NOT EXACTLY HAVE NOBEL LAUREATES DOING THE VOTING FOR THE OSCARS. HOLLYWOOD HAS BEEN MORALLY BANKRUPT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. WHEN IS THE LAST TIME THEY MADE A DECENT MOVIE? THEY ARE OUT FOR THE MONEY. HOW MANY MUSLIMS/ARABS SEE AMERICAN MOVIES? HARDLY ANY. IT WON'T WIN.
20. humans?
Jan ,   Germany   (02.07.06)
i do not want to judge the valour of this film. but: 1. after a killing in a school over here in which 11 teacher, 2 kids and the killer himself were shot dead (im not exactly sure about the number, it is not relevant anyway), the German president said in public: remember - whatever he does, a human always will be a human. goethe once said that he would have become a murderer if the circumstances of his life would have made him to it. - no, i do not want to excuse any palestinian suicide bombers, because there is no excuse. but there is need to understand them. if this film helps, it is good - after all, the perspective is clearly palestinian - and still quite "modest" - everyone here knows what many radical arabs think and do. and many radical jews. or is it much better to accuse others of nazism and use terms like ratlike minds, Michael U? This is more dehumanizing than showing ugly jewish israelis (who celarly exist, as well as ugly people everywhere on this world) or is it better to have a fixed idea of the way a jew has to think like tahl? this is censorship of the mind - the next step would be to argue that somebody who thinks alike can't be Jewish - or German, and therefore... Just think about yourselves first.
21. to all our friends from abroad
(02.07.06)
Wether u are allies or enemies - it is important u know something about the Journalist/author who wrote this artical. She is a straight up femenist, human rights activist and pretty far off to the left side. Ypu have to understand that if this movie managed to raise her blood pressure, something about it is very rotten.
22. to "Dr. Doctor"
Sara ,   Jerusalem   (02.07.06)
If you'd read the opinion piece above, you would note that Linor's first argument that this work is a "quality Nazi film" is that there is an Israeli in it who is "ugly." From this, she draws the (in my opinion) unwarranted conclusion that Abu-Assad is an anti-Semite. My point is to simply refute this by pointing out that the Israelis in the film are not "ugly" in any sense of the word. If you're going to criticize this film, don't start with your personal opinion as to the attractiveness of beards. Truly bizarre.
23. part 2
Sara ,   Jerusalem   (02.07.06)
As to the second point, no one (myself or the film) suggests anywhere that settlers have poisoned Palestinians to death (shooting is far more efficient). HOWEVER, reports from groups like B'Tselem of settlers poisoning crops and livestock and destroying wells suggest that the taxi driver's comments (in the film) about rumors of such settler activity are hardly grounds to base your case that the film is anti-Semetic. Just like the first argument as to the attractiveness of the Israeli collaborator, this is weak .
24. FILM HAS AN ISRAELI PRODUCER?
DEBRA ,   USA   (02.07.06)
WHAT IN THE WORLD IS UP WITH THIS GUY? IDIOT.
25. part 3
Sara ,   Jerusalem   (02.07.06)
It hardly takes reading between the lines to see that Linor (and many others) can't handle the idea that Palestinians, including suicide bombers, are human. That they live in "tastefully decorated homes." The film humanizes them (not "excuses," or "condones," but humanizes, which is something very different). For doing this, and not portraying them as monsters or fanatics, the film must be anti-Semitic? I don't follow.
26. Hany Abu-Assad, Leni Riefenstahl reincarnated
Elle ,   NYC   (02.07.06)
27. Good writing, Good work!
Sami ,   Musrara, Jeruslem   (02.07.06)
The true about this bulshit movie
28. Irit - a woman of integrity
Leonie ,   Israel   (02.07.06)
Irit - you always get the point of what an issue is really about. I love your radio programme, "Hamila Ha'aharona" . You just get better and better from year to year. Here's to you, Irit !
29. Sara...
meh ,   USA   (02.07.06)
The problem is not that the film showing the Terrorists as humans. I am sure they are. The problem is that the view that is presented in the movie is very biased towards the arab point of view. Biased enough to be ripped from reality. Now true, the movie doesn't have to follow reality as it is a dramatization of events. But that does not stop viewers to treat is as facts, and this is where the problem lies. The fact that certain viewers might take it into being an absolute truth, a documentry. Same problem as with movies like Munich, JFK, Syriana and others. They do not pretend to be documentry, but they don't work too hard on reminding people that they aren't. The movie uses alot of cheap tricks to make you beleive Israel is a horrible place, and that the terrorists are tourmented saints. Neither is true. And last point, killing civilians on a bus is never justified. (oh and the fact that the bus was filled with soldiers only is also cheap and untrue). At least show them for what they really are.
30. meh
Sara ,   Jerusalem   (02.08.06)
I agree that this film is "biased"--I would hardly expect anything else. It's biased towards a perspective. I don't think it would be worth watching if it weren't. I can't judge how divorced from reality it might be, since I've never been to Nablus (nor have most of the people who criticize this film). But let's say that this film is both biased towards a Palestinian perspective, and that it is also divorced from what we perceive the reality of the situation to be ... does this make it a "Nazi film?" Does it make Hany Abu-Assad a second Riefenstahl? Is the film anti-Semitic in its portrayal of Jews? On a side note, suicide bombers have targeted both the military (soldiers at hitch-hiking posts, checkpoints, etc.) and a whole lot of civilians. That the filmmakers chose to present the former is defensible, but still something of a cop-out: far more civilians have died in attacks than soldiers.
Next talkbacks
Back to article