No one asks. No one answers

[eumelia]

A critical article regarding Waltz with Bashir called When Israel accepts the war waltz and when it doesn't which was brought to my attention by shelestel via esizzle.

As some of you know Waltz with Bashir won the foreign language Golden Globe which aired during the second week of operation "Cast Lead" a.k.a the Israeli War on Gaza.
To say it was apropos would be an understatement.

Reading this very interesting article, few things popped out and made me think of something I hadn't actually considered before.

"It is a completely apolitical film. It's a personal film. If it were a political film, we would have dealt with the other sides, meaning that we would have interviewed the Palestinian and Christian sides. And it does not. It's a very personal film," Folman told France 24.

But in being apolitical, Waltz With Bashir also fails to provide context.

The film's narrative begins as Folman, the main character, travels to Europe and around Israel speaking with fellow soldiers who fought in Lebanon. He eventually begins to piece together what happened during his time in Beirut, which he had erased from his memory.
[...]
Maybe it was too much to ask Folman to reinterpret the entire historical accounting of Israel's invasion of Lebanon in one film. But if the Israeli public is able to swallow the sensitive nature of Waltz With Bashir it is precisely because it stays away from treating the Israeli state as a long-time political actor in the systematic, ongoing violence in Lebanon.

Thus, there is no overt questioning of why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place. Israeli military actions are validated under the guise of "fighting terrorism," and this is poignant when considering how the current Gaza war will be viewed in hindsight.

Also, Waltz With Bashir fails to present Israeli soldiers as direct participants in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila. Israeli soldiers were only following orders so any responsibility lay solely with the chain of command.

Emphasis mine.

I have to say... this wasn't something I had considered before. Quite simply, because I am ignorant of Israel's role as a political entity within Lebanon's inner politics.
I consider myself a pretty well-informed individual.
I knew of the massacre.
After the second Lebanon war I took the time to read about the first Lebanon war and "discovered" the massacre in which the IDF is complicit.
Before 2006 Sabra and Shatila was just something that happened to the Palestinians in Lebanon. I had no idea who or why or even what was committed.
For over 21 years a portion of history - mine and theirs - was unknown to me.
This is not something strange, I know a few others to whom this movie was the first time they were confronted with the fact that the we, Israel, helped commit a crime... no "war" prefix needed in my opinion.

This article is correct in stating (not directly) that Israelis in general do not ask "Why?", "For what reason?", "How does this serve us?".
We [the collective] take for granted, in this very militarist and nationalist inclined society that everything done, even if it's "bad" is for the good of Israel and Jewish people.
In Sabra and Shatila there was senseless murder.
Ari Folman shows that very well.
What isn't asked is "Why were we even there in the first place?", now I don't know what Ari Folman's thoughts or opinions on that are, but I do know that for the "average" Israeli the question doesn't even enter our minds.

We are not encouraged to ask these questions that may undermine the hegemony of citizen loyalry to the Zionist collective.
We are not encouraged to ask questions period, we are either stupid or provocative, and who wants to be regarded as either stupid or provocative.

Every war is a war for the continued existence.

Even though every war, since the 1982 Lebanon war, has brought about internal protest.

This war, on Gaza and against Hamas, has brought a wave of right wing nationalism and extremism. The political discourse may be saying "Left", but facts on the ground (a saying we love so much in this part of the world) is screaming "Right":
During "Cast Lead" over 700 Palestinian-Israelis (colloquially known as Israeli-Arabs) were arrested and brought in for questioning for demonstrating against the war.
The two Arab parties Balad and Ra'am-Ta'al were stricken from the ballot (the Supreme court will reinstate their place, no doubt).
The Israeli media did not do it's job by asking the tough questions that great Free Press Journalism makes, we can always blame the IDF censors, but I think a certain ideology runs through Israeli media.

The biggest questions the no one asked was "what good will this war bring? will it actually stop Hamas from firing rockets? and if this is for the people of Sderot and the rest of surrounding towns why was this not dealt with before 2005, before the IDF left the strip?".

Same with Lebanon 1982... no one asked why. Not the soldiers who were only following orders like all the soldiers in the world who do not want to consider what they do to be inhumane. Not the home front who wants to believe that what is happening is done for their own protection.

No one asks.
No one answers.

It's a point that is, I think, brought across quite poignantly in Waltz with Bashir.

Comments

[schemingreader.livejournal.com]

I think she's unfair to the filmmaker, if you read this interview with him:

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/01/13/1002224/filmmaker-reveals-waltz-with-bashir-backstory

He said this:

Fielding questions from the audience about how the film might be able inform the current war in Gaza, Folman said he doesn’t believe that films can change the world.

“I do think they can build small bridges, but I don’t think they can change public opinion. Israelis love this film because it shows what war really is, but,” he said, talking about the current war in Gaza, “they say ‘Sometimes you have to do what you have to do.’ That’s very Israeli.

“So unfortunately, my film did not change anything.”

In fact I've heard more about repression of dissent in this war than any previous one, and it's scary.

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

I agree (with the writer being unfair to Folman) hence my entry about the article.

It's thought provoking, but ultimately it's an unfair criticism about the movie is trying to say, imo.

It's very scary to be stating dissent! "Fifth Column". Oy!

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

You spoke in an earlier post about expanding your audience.
I recommended sending stuff to Op-Eds of mainstream media.

It seems to me that you have here, your 2006 experiences vis-a-vis your catharsis with WWB and the 2008 conflict good material which may be relevant to these Op-Eds, especially if it seems like WWB may pick up an Oscar too.

Remember though, that they will probably want origional material - you may not be able to use what you've already blogged...

[eumelia.livejournal.com]

Today is Oscar nomination day.
If it indeed gets nominated (very likely to) then I'll write something out.
Are you my second pair of eyes?

[hemlock-sholes.livejournal.com]

Sure.

Lack of context?

[assafr.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from what I've heard the historical context is indeed missing. The bad Israelis just decide to invade the peaceful Lebanon for some reason.

What is missing from the context? How about the fact that the PLO took over vast parts of Lebanon, intervened in their civil war, and used that area to mount terrorist attacks and rocket launches against Israel.


Also: "fails to present Israeli soldiers as direct participants in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila"
Because they weren't. These were Christian Arabs killing Muslim Arabs and the Israelis (mainly Jews) are to blame...

It is true that there was a crime of criminal neglegence. Or in other words "Israelis should have known better than to put Arabs in charge of their sworn enemies, or who knows what would happen".