Saturday, November 12, 2005
As we follow the news here at Solomonia, one of the recurring themes we rail against is the mainstreaming of certain "bad ideas." One of the foremost of these bad ideas is terror, and specifically suicide terror -- from morally-destitute MSM descriptions of "militants" stripped of their true descriptor as "terrorists," to college professors influencing young minds with a moral nihilism that sets the world of right and wrong topsy-turvy.
"The Right" in America has been known in recent years for recognizing something that's come to be called "the Culture War." This is generally recognized as the creeping degeneration of traditional cultural values -- in the case of the American Right these values would most often show up as fidelity, chastity, sobriety, piety, the work ethic, in-tact families, etc...mostly in the realm of entertainment.
Members of the American Left -- and I count myself as having been among them -- are known to scoff at such concerns as overblown and born more of over-religiosity than common sense.
But let me see if I can draw the sides together, at least on one issue, or at least if not draw them together, help them see over the wall at each other with the help of something.
You see, what I really do here very often is fight that Culture War. I tend not to post over-much on the issues I enumerated above, being something of a Libertarian or "South Park" conservative (although I respect the conservatives who do worry more about these things), but my constant railing against the media's inability to call a terrorist a terrorist, and international institutions' inability to unequivocally condemn the same...it's all our little role in the Culture War. It stems from my fear, my horror at the possibility that terrorism, and specifically suicide terror should become part of the mainstream of rational choices people may choose to make.
For instance, there is no question that a factor in the French rioting has been the European press's glorification and justification of Arab street violence and suicide terror against Israelis. They are now reaping what they have sown in both the massive violence that has now been turned against them, and their own limp "we must understand the motives of the perpetrators" response.
The Arab world is now being swept with an epidemic of suicide murder that absolutely stems from their own glorification of the same when it was directed against others, and which, by making it acceptable, they are now reaping the bitter spoils of.
It starts with words. It starts with a society understanding certain behaviors and choices, which in many, many peoples' minds is a very short hop to acceptance. And once the door is open, you can never control who or what walks through. Once you invite the vampire over the threshold, he's there to stay.
I've posted about the new film Paradise Now previously. See here, here and here. The film which humanizes the suicide bombers, which questions not whether Israelis are bad, but how bad, and not whether they are evil or not, but merely which of them and how they ought to be killed, and which was made by an Israeli who calls himself a Palestinian, has now won and been nominated for multiple awards.
Reading admiring reviews like that presented at MSNBC, Suicide Bombers Are People, Too, one can be forgiven for reacting with shock and alarm. What, exactly, are we allowing into our body politic? What is it, exactly, that's now considered part of the acceptable discourse? What have we done? We should be able to see where it leads. The fact that the director presents his work with appropriate hand-wringing and a posture of concern changes nothing with regard to this film's meaning and effect -- in fact, it contributes to the damage, as it gives the false impression that even the well-meaning and reasonable can understand and present the horrible...they make the unthinkable palatable.
If you're one of those on the Left who's never had much sympathy for the Right's concern with morality and the creeping destruction of societal mores in the media, but you read this blog and others like it and are at least on the same page with regard to what we have to say about terrorism, perhaps you can grasp the concept now, at least on this.
Let me be the first to welcome you to the Culture Wars. You've been drafted.
It's even worse than that. I haven't seen this movie and I do not intend to see it. Anyway, here is a piece of a post by an Israeli blogger, Lisa:
"And last night I saw a stunning film about Palestinian suicide bombers - which was actually a very eloquent cries for peace. It's called Paradise Now, and it has won some very serious international prizes."
I have to admit that I was shocked reading this post by this otherwise very level headed blogger.
link:
http://ontheface.blogspot.com/2005/11/tales-from-bubble.html
Have you seen the film? I have, and I can assure you that it does not justify terrorism in any way. Quite the contrary. I would certainly never recommend a film that glorified murder.
Lisa,
I haven't seen it and it's going to be a long time before I do, but the descriptions from people I think I can trust are not encouraging. And Lisa, the negative signs of the things I'm talking about are right there in your post and comments:
"Israeli guy: Wow. Well, listen, I can totally understand you. If I were a Palestinian from the territories I'd have become a suicide bomber for sure."
Commenter:
"...I think it succeeded in two ways:
- It presented the despair and claustrophobia of life in the West Bank the way I've never seen before, and in a way I've never imagined before. That's something that never comes through in news broadcasts.
- It sympathized with suicide bombers and yet addressed the moral failings of suicide bombing. The director is clearly ambivalent, and he managed to get that ambivalence across very skillfully.
I have to admit that I rolled my eyes when one of the protagonists withdraws from bombing a bus because he sees a little child on board. Come on! Suicide bombers don't hesitate to bomb even with children around. Also, the story about an Israeli solder who gave a man a choice of which leg to be shot in, else he'd be shot in both, made me wonder..."
Also, the guys in the film who you refer to as "Arab Israelis" refer to themselves in everything I've read as "Palestinians." I believe the director says he's "a Palestinian with an Israeli passport." Great.
Protocols of Zion, a movie which I hated (see here and here), was a decently made film, and probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow in the average person, but when you look a little deeper, the problems pile up. A film on a subject like this needs to meet a higher standard.
I hope you're right, of course, but I must say that even what you mean as a positive post isn't exactly encouraging.
I simply do not understand how it is possible to have such a strong opinion about a film you have not seen.
You've condemned a very good film based on the opinions of others. There are explicit statements *against* suicide bombings made throughout the film.
I'm not making any commissions on ticket sales, and clearly the decision to see the film is your own. But I do think it is intellectually dangerous to express a strong opinion in a public forum without knowing the facts.
And by the way, you really misunderstood the comment of the guy I quoted in my post (I quoted him because he was an example of the idiot version of a leftist with a case of Stockholm Syndrome).
And re. "understanding" suicide bombers: I think it is possible to understand a mentality without condoning it. There is nothing in my post that would support the opinion that I condone suicide bombings. How could I? I've seen enough of them.
I understand that you presented the statement of that guy as those of an idiot. Don't you think there are a lot of idiots just like him out there?
I never said *you* condone suicide bombing, of course (I also, for the record, didn't mention your post in mine, that was done by a commenter), but not everyone who's getting a taste of understanding from this film has had your experiences -- or taken from them what you have. They are far closer to understanding = > sympathy = > acceptance. That is the point.
BTW, your commenter quoted above considers it a success that the director is clearly "ambivalent" toward suicide bombing. Ambivalent! This is an endorsement?
Suicide bombers are murderers, too.
Lest anyone forget.
"They are far closer to understanding = > sympathy = > acceptance. That is the point."
Precisely. And, to state what one might hope would be more obvious than it apparently is, that is not merely a rhetorical point, it's very much a substantive point.
There are occasions when even exaggerated analogies can help to focus and clarify the point. Imagine, for example, people attempting to "understand" or "sympathize with" a homicide/suicide bomber if and when they detonate a WMD in NYC, Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, L.A. or a small, port, coastal city. Even in such a situation it may well be possible for a producer/director to put a "stunning" film together in order to "understand" the "despair and claustrophobia" of the perpetrator. (All of which can be subjected to critical and historical/factual based reviews in the first place.) Too, it could be a film which people would walk away from and say, quite convincingly to themselves, that they "would certainly never recommend a film that glorified" the use of WMDs to murder masses of people. (If people have a problem imagining this, think of the hate-filled levels of anti-Americanism in some parts of the world and the willingness of many to be seduced by this type of propaganda; at some level that willingness within the person needs to be cultivated as well, to subvert the will.)
What this film does, according to the varied and several reviews I've read, is what many cinematic experiences do in order to forward the moral themes they're proffering. Essentially they purposely confuse aesthetic, moral, historical/factual, social/political and other categories in order to forward what can rightly be thought of as a seduction, sometimes performed with notable sophistication and other times with less than great levels of sophistication, often enough it's even transparent and laughable, though all that depends on the individual viewer and the target audience the producer/director had in mind.
Perhaps people resist this view, in part, because most all of us have been fooled by disingenuous people and we know it can hurt, plus we don't like to admit we've been fooled in the first place.
(Btw, I don't need to view a production of Protocols of the Elders of Zion or even a much more subly sophisticated Sam Mendes or Phillip Noyce film in order to understand the seductive experience being forwarded. This is not to equate Protocols with Noyce's "Quiet American" or Mendes's "Jarhead". This is not about equivocation or a blanket dismissiveness as various and sundry levels of sophistication and subject matter are involved, each are more or less sui generis.)
Even the good reviews, no, *especially* the good reviews are worrisome. There's plenty there to discuss.
Imagine it's a sensitive look at the making of a mass murderer, all through the point of view of the murderer himself with little care or display of the impact on his victims. Sure most people wouldn't go out and become murderers. Of course most people "get it." But it's also fertile ground for a lot of trouble as people "lose the thread." It happens in a criminal justice format all the time -- too much empathy for the criminal, who then gets an absurd sentence, while the victims fall through the cracks.
Does the world really need a more sensitive look at the making of a suicide murderer? Does really come as any surprise the film is garnering all sorts of praise (not to mention funding) in Europe?