Wednesday, October 17, 2007
As many of you are aware, a week from this coming Friday and Saturday, on October 26 and 27, the Old South Church (United Church of Christ) in Boston will be hosting a conference of the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center designed to push the apartheid charge against Israel. Sabeel is dedicated to Israel's destruction as a Jewish State (In other words, Israel's destruction), and is a tool in the West to get that to happen. They have had particular success in partnering with various of the Mainline Protestant Churches. 
This morning I had the privilege of conducting an unscripted video interview with Dexter Van Zile of CAMERA, himself a UCC member, who has been studying this issue closely for some time. For a good text backgrounder, see his piece: Boston's Old South Church Welcomes Sabeel.
Since the event is next week, I wanted to get this up as soon as possible, so it is mostly unedited and runs a little long at around 38 minutes, but we hit a lot of issues here: Old South, the UCC, Sabeel, the Mainline Churches and their attitudes toward Jews and Israel generally, the Mennonites and Ahmadinejad, Gary Burge (see here and here), Liberation Theology and some other stuff I'm sure I've forgotten. In the future I can create a trimmed-down version if necessary. I think many people will find it of use and a good backgrounder. Oh yeah, and sorry for the sound. I'll learn to use an external mic eventually, but I think it came out better than I feared. Thanks again to Dexter for his time and expertise.
A protest to this event is planned. If you are interested in being involved (and people are always needed), go here now.
Update: Look what the cat's dragging in to Boston: Eileen Fleming, one of the participants in the wildly anti-Semitic No More Wars for Israel conference is pushing this Sabeel event on her blog, and touting an anti-Israel rally being held across the street as well. Karin Freidemann has been pushing the same event on the Islamic Society of Boston email list.
What an interesting, articulate guy. Congrats to him for showing such intelligence and independence of mind. It was an good interview, but a depressing one. It's discouraging to see how a lingering Christian ambivalence towards Judaism and just plain ignorance could have such ramifications.
Also, the cynicism of the formula "one state for two peoples and three religions" is so obvious, how is it that these church people could miss it? They see how government is run in the PA, and they see the level of tolerance in the Arab world as a whole. Why are they so credulous? I sometimes wonder if stupidity isn't more dangerous than bigotry.
Solomon, I was curious about something: Why was the interview done in the street? It was amusing how the camera follows Van Zile down the street until he stops at an alcove, where you then have the interview, as if this had to be done on the sly. But why? Why didn't you just speak in his office or home, or yours? And why did he make such a strangely hasty exit when the interview was over? He may have been pressed for time, but still...
Anyway, I did learn a lot from this video. Thanks!
I thought it would be more visually interesting and meaningful to do the interview outside, on location where this event is happening, rather than the thousands of these types of things which have a guy sitting in a big chair with a blue screen or some books in the background (boring). We could have gone across the street to the Boston Public Library with the church in the background, but again, I thought the symbolism of being in the alley behind the church was good (and if you know how Dexter is involved in opposing these kinds of events and keeping an eye on the Mainline churches on a regular basis, it was appropriate -- besides, this way we didn't have to wait for the light to cross a street). It also had the added benefit of sheltering a bit from street sounds since I wasn't using an external mic.
Walk in style was a way of drawing you in to the conversation (and again, visually interesting). The walk out seemed a good way to finish with symmetry. It was all, with just a minor edit at the end, done in one shot.
I'm glad you watched the whole thing!
Oh yeah, I watched the whole thing. Don't cut a minute out of it. It was all very interesting. And the sound was fine.
The beginning was obviously a bit of staging, and fun to watch. That the end was staged too is frankly a relief to me. Otherwise, I wouldn't be able to figure out what was behind his seeming ambivalence.
My wife thought the beginning was goofy, btw. Harumph.
Well...maybe a little. But it was ok. It made me smile...roll my eyes a little...but also smile. I found it amusing. The ending was a bit abrupt, I'm afraid. Anyway, that's not important. These are really minor points that don't detract in any way from the interview itself, which was really good.
I'm glad that you didn't ask him to wear shades and a trench coat. That might have been over the top. :-)
Sol,
Listen to your wife.
The idea of using footage of Dexter walking as bookends for the interview works better as an artistic conceit than as video. There's way too much dead air. More than a minute & a quarter of Dexter walking into an alley with no explanation is just too long. It might work edit it down and add a voice-over to set the stage, like by saying something about Dexter.
Likewise, cut out the dead air when the truck goes by or Dexter wonders about the street urchins. Yeah, that stuff was real, but so what. What does that add to the video. It's not like you're producing a cinema verité documentary or seeing how Dexter handles those things adds any depth to the interview or insight into the man. There's nothing poignant about it. Lose it.
Well, I didn't even care what a "Sabeel" was, but I actually watched that whole thing because of the beginiing and all that and I wouldn't have done that with a normal boring interview, so I say good job, leave it as is and ignore that ho' (uh, the one above me, not your wife). Everyone's a critic.
Commendable, nicely done, informative. Clicked on it thinking I'd watch a couple of minutes or more, then ended up watching the whole 30+ minutes and was not disappointed in the least - much to the contrary, it was an articulate, thoughtful, incisive interview and your questions were nicely put and on-point as well. Well done, very well done; absent MSM gloss and superficial polish and absent MSM guile and b.s. in general as well.
(And it's too bad, as in regretful, that the passing truck wasn't hauling off some of Sabeel's and Naim Ateek's rhetoric to an appropriate destination.)
Good to see some things never change. If we could ever get Dexie to trim the glorious detail of knowledge, to the core issues and his opinion therein, he would have his own tv show by now. i know i would watch. i liked the local, and the side noises added some value to the non-commercial reality. Great prelude to the conference.
OK, so Jim G (Hmmm. Any relation to Kenny? They have the same last name.), Michael B and Bill Wahl like the dead air and enjoy the local color. There's no accounting for taste, is there?
Amen.
Personally, I'm in awe of Dexter's knowledge and depth here. Too detailed a delivery for sound bites, for fame and fortune as a member of the chattering class? Maybe, but the detail tells me he's not just slinging hash. He really knows what he's talking about; I enjoy listening to Dexter. True fact: When Dex speaks, he can be witty, as when he accepted CJUI's "Pommy" award a couple of weeks ago. The trick would be for him to find a balance, to lose the footnotes but not the substance.
Face it Nappy, I've transcended mere "interview" here and made a "short film." They better remember me at Cannes.
Wahl, Bill Wahl? ZA? Union Ave. I'm a bastard, I'm a bastard?
Izzat You?
Who in hell cares what Dexter Van Zile thinks about anything?