As promised, here is my report on the screening of HonestReporting.com's film, Relentless, and the talk by Alan Dershowitz that followed.

Arrival and Intro

The event was sponsored by The Boston Israel Action Committee (BIAC), Boston University Students for Israel, Land of Israel Committee, The David Project, Combined Jewish Philanthropies, and the Jewish Community Relations Council. I found out about the screening through my subscription to the JAT-Action email list, and since I've been curious about the film but unwilling to shell out the 25 bucks to buy my own copy just for a peak, and since I'm always interested in hearing Professor Dershowitz speak, I thought this would be a worthwhile event to attend.

I suspected that attendance would be decent, and hoped it would do a bit better than the Dore Gold book signing I attended (I still say I'm owed something for that particular waste of time), and not feeling confident about Boston traffic these days I left early and arrived a full hour before the 7PM start time.

As a BU alum, I was familiar with the venue from my student days - the venerable Morse Auditorium. Somewhat ironically, the Morse was originally a Jewish Temple - the original home of Boston's Temple Israel Reform Congregation. As such, it was a fairly large auditorium with a vaulted roof. The seats have been replaced since I was a student, and I'd estimate it seats about 6 or 700 people, including a couple of rows in the balcony.

There were already some people there even an hour early, so I figured I was right expecting attendance would be good. I considered going back out to the car to get a book, but it was so damn cold I decided to just sit and people-watch.

Security was pretty tight. There were several cops as well as a couple of guys in suits with ear-pieces. People kept on coming and by the time the film started at around 7:15 it was a full house including the balcony as far as I could tell. Attendees seemed to be drawn from a wide range of ages, from college to retirement, male and female, with a large number of Russian accents within earshot of me. The organizers must have been pleased.

The Film

After a brief introduction by the hosts, the film began. I was anxious to see it, and nervous about the feelings it might bring out in me. How shocking will the images be? Will the film make me angry without providing an outlet for my anger (thereby engendering a series of ranting blog-posts...)? Will the film make me proud, or will it make me ashamed by making a good case bad through a piece of pappish propaganda?

I think there's something qualitatively different in watching something like this with a like-minded audience than the experience one might get watching it alone at home, or as an internet video-stream. It's not Return of the King, but a film like Relentless is a natural for a communal viewing experience.

The film? I'm not a film reviewer, but let me give you a few impressions. It starts with a quick history lesson on the founding of the State of Israel and the first few wars. Animated maps are used for this history lesson, which aims to show how the UN partitioned the land, who got what, and what the Arabs said no to in favor of going to war. The narrative voice-over is a major aspect of the viewing experience here, and throughout the film, and I found it to be the most questionable aspect. I only say it was "questionable" - not that I have the answer. Personally, I felt the over-produced voice gave the film an almost propagandistic, "play on the emotions" feel, and that made me worry a bit. [Edit: Listening back now to a bit of the film after having written this, and I'm not sure that I may to have over-reacted a bit to "the voice," but this was my initial impression so I'm going to leave it.] This is not the voice of Ken Burns' Civil War, this is a more commanding, reverberating voice. Maybe it's more effective that way, I don't know. I'm just saying it concerned me.

Interviews are used to punctuate the maps and video shots. Only one Palestinian representative is seen - the PA ambassador to South Africa, who's name escapes me. Blog-readers will recognize many of the other faces - Natan Sharansky, John Loftus, Caroline Glick (who's better looking than her Jerusalem Post photo makes her seem I must say), Joseph Farah, Tasbih Sayyed (Editor of Pakistan Today), Daniel Pipes and Itamar Marcus all make appearances and give measured balance to "The Voice."

The history is by way of prologue to the meat of the film, which is really a description of peace efforts post-1967, and particularly the Oslo era. Video and expert testimony from many of the above personalities is used to describe what Oslo was, what the sides were expected to do, and to hammer home the idea that Israel has substantially and in good-faith complied with all of its obligations and expectations, while Arafat's PA has not.

Itamar Marcus's Palestinian Media Watch is a prime source here. We see video of Palestinian TV. We see children being taught the glory of martyrdom. We are treated shots of Arafat smiling and talking peace for the Western cameras, and then the scene changes and we see him glorifying Hamas suicide bombers and praising Sheik Yassin. We see video of Palestinian children's "summer camps" which look more like Special Forces training. We see video of Palestinian Communications Director, Imad el-Falouji, exhorting a crowd and announcing that plans for violence had commenced in advance of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

All of this is quite effective, and may be the most important aspect of the film, which leaves us hoping that it has proven the point it set out to make - that the Palestinian leadership is not a partner for peace, and not just based on surmise and "he said/she said," but on solid evidence.

The film finished and the lights came up. There was a tentative smattering of applause. Is this the type of film you applaud? Yes, decided the crowd, and there was much clapping.

Does the film accomplish its mission? Yes, if a mind is ready to accept the message. The trouble with the entire issue of Israel and peace is that it is a one-sided story - because it is a one-sided story. That makes it very difficult for even the most dispassionate description of events to appear as anything other than propaganda (in the negative sense), and that's going to leave it difficult for anyone but those ready to receive the message in danger of tuning out. "OK, OK," I can hear them saying, "but there's GOT to be another side..." The fact that there really isn't doesn't help, and that provides an extra hurdle for the film's producers. Forget the idea of a rich person purchasing an hour of network time to air the film on American television. That would just result in a responding salvo from the other side and in the resulting mess a whole bunch of average Americans disgusted and sick of the whole thing.

My strategy would be to keep a copy of the film on hand, ready to view, but only by those who want to view it - those who are ready to receive its message. Forcing this on anyone, or showing it to those who aren't ready for it bears a great risk of actually turning them off to the truths contained in it. For those who are ready, this film may bear an effective and powerful message, and brings graphic full-motion color to the sterile, dead headlines. I'm looking forward to finding the right opportunity to show it and getting feedback. Copies of the film were for sale and I did purchase one. Sadly, only in VHS, not DVD, since I was informed that the final 2 minutes of the DVD version were "messed up." Come on, guys, you gotta get that worked out. No one uses video anymore.

The Dershowitz Speech & Question and Answer Session

Dershowitz is clearly a practiced speaker. He spoke clearly, at length, and without notes. I won't go into everything he said, mostly because of course I only took a few notes and can't remember everything he said. He was funny and serious by turns, easily holding the audience's attention. He spoke about pro-Israel advocacy in general, and on campus specifically. He mentioned that one of the biggest problems he sees is that there is plenty of anti-Israel activity, and plenty of professors willing to speak out against Israel on campus, but all too often, too many pro-Israel professors are afraid to speak out. They call him to thank him for his efforts and tell him about their fears, but do nothing themselves. This is a big problem.

He spoke about the World Court and expressed his concerns about the upcoming Fence hearings, about the political nature of the Court, and about the fact that every Arab and Muslim country will be submitting briefs, but that the actual victims of terror would not be allowed to be heard.

He spoke several times against men like Noam Chomsky, the late Edward Said and Norman Finkelstein. In particular, he chastized Chomsky for not having the guts to debate knowledgeable people, and ducking his challenges. He spoke loudly about the fact that he would debate Chomsky anytime, anywhere.

He spoke about the extraordinary lengths Israel goes to in making moral decisions in its war on terror, and its targeted assassinations. He described his recent trip to Israel, in which he was allowed in on one of the meetings that makes such decisions. I believe he said there was a panel of twenty persons - including military people, international law attorneys, ethicists, a mathmatician to calculate potential collateral damage, and including a discussion of the balance between potential civilian and Israeli military casualties, all while there was a live heat-signature display of the actual terrorist under discussion going about his business in his home. In the end, it was decided the risks to innocents were too great, and they would wait for him to move to a vehicle.

A few of my notes from the question period:

The first person asked what the Professor felt should be done about Homicide Bombings. Part of his answer was interesting. He discussed levels of culpability, and included the inciters and glorifiers as people directly responsible for the violence. As an example, he felt whoever planned the exhibit at An-Najah University glorifying the Sbarro Restaurant bombing (the display is shown in the film, by the way) had made themselves into a completely valid military target.

Another questioner asked about what should be done about some of the deeper settlements like Ariel...Dershowitz, IIRC, didn't give a specific answer, but he did mention some of the massacres of Jews during the War of Independence, and used the 1929 massacre at Hebron as an example, saying that Jews had lived there for 3500 years and that there is no reason Jews should NOT live there, but as a practical matter it may be necessary, unjust as it may be, that Jews may not be able to.

The third questioner was an interesting character. This guy was mistaken at the start of the night for a homeless person who had just wandered in off the street. He was tall and thin, disheveled, clearly a tad disturbed judging by his movements, and by the fact that when I had noticed him earlier he had been rather obviously wiping his nose on the back of his exposed forearm. As he approached the microphone, I noticed a police officer had moved toward the front of the room.

Before he spoke, Dershowitz introduced him himself. He said something along the lines of, "Let me introduce you to my intellectual stalker. He follows me around to every speaking event. OK, go ahead..."

The guy was well-spoken enough, actually, if a bit...strident. Maybe one of those 60's guys who dropped acid one too many times back in the day and blames the military-industrial complex for underfunding the Math Department and denying him tenure. Who knows. Anyway, he took Dershowitz to task for saying Chomsky hadn't debated him, when in fact he had on several occasions, which Dershowitz conceded was true, but "not for a long time." "The stalker" said Chomsky now refuses to debate Dershowitz because he calls Dershowitz a "mediocre intellect." He also brought up Dershowitz's writing and statements against Chomsky for his authorship of an Introduction to one of famed Holocaust-denier Robert Faurison's books, and his accusing Chomsky himself of flirting with Holocaust Revision. "The Stalker" claimed that Dershowitz was distorting the record and ignoring Chomsky's version of events.

Dershowitz gave the man his say, then beckoned the next person to step up to the mic, and "The Stalker" moved off.

Another questioner stated that his daughter, a student at Cornell, was having trouble getting the film shown there, that it had been called hate-speech and that Hillel was not supporting her. Dershowitz reacted firmly to this. He said the film is absolutely not hate-speech, that it is truth, and that the man should call his office, and that he personally would call the head of Cornell Hillel, and if they still couldn't get action that he, personally, would rent a hall and show the picture himself. This garnered much applause as one might imagine.

On the issue of media bias, Dershowitz said that he'd been reading the New York Times for years, and felt that they were overall dead-solid center good and fair in their Israel coverage. This garnered some murmurs, but he stuck to his story. He said the Boston Globe's hard news coverage was also very fair (I disagree), but that their Editorial Page is an unmitigated disgrace.

To show that those who hope that Dershowitz's support for Israel and the War on Terror generally might be causing him to shift some of his ideological ground, forget it. The Professor has way too many decades, too much writing, too much speaking and too much of his reputation invested in his position as a main-line Democratic Party liberal. He generally avoided discussing specifics and shied away from harsh criticisms of specific politicians, but he did get enough in to make it clear he was not a supporter of the war on Iraq, not a Bush supporter, nor a Sharon man.

He said he does not read the Wall Street Journal editorial page as it makes him physically ill. He will not appear on FOX, even though they are pro-Israel, because he thinks they are horrendously biased.

Based on these statements, and his showing himself to be coming from a New York Times viewpoint, I picture him as akin to the frog in the slowly heating pot of water. He doesn't even notice how the world has changed around him. He no longer recognizes his own biases, nor the biases of others so long as they match his own.

He mentioned that the way CAMERA gets specifics is an excellent way to combat media bias, and that NPR is terrible. They think they are fair by giving equal time to both sides, but that find moderate Palestinians and then put up either extreme Leftist or extreme Rightist Israelis.

He feels that there's no reason to have Palestinians entering Israel to work, that it is not humanitarian, that, in fact, Israel owes nothing to the Palestinians and that it should be up to Jordan to support the West Bank economy. He does not believe in ANY imported labor, but a return to the Labor Zionist (my words) days when Israelis did the work for themselves.

Speaking about the Geneva Accords, he felt that, among many problems, is the fact that it gives even more to the Palestinians than they were offered at Taba. He says, in the interests of never rewarding terrorists, the Palestinians should always be offered LESS after they turn down a deal. Unsurprisingly, the author of Why Terrorism Works thinks it's a big mistake to reward terror.

Conclusion

Excellent evening. Seeing Professor D speak was a treat. The film is a must-see for any pro-Israel person, and a must-own for showing when the conditions and audience is right. It can be a welcome experience for frustrated people seeking like-minded others to share an evening with - something that may be a familiar feeling for blog readers - and may help do a little good, as well.

Update: I just recalled OceanGuy's report on his viewing. He had some of the same problems thinking of what to "do" with the film.