14 Comments

1. Zoe Strickman

   You’re very right. Where would I find a copy? -Zoe
2. Josh

   I’m not sure if/where it’s available for download or where to get a hard copy (although I’ve been told one exists).
3. Yk

   I think that the film misses important points and is blatant propaganda.
   If you do no consider Gaza to be part of Eretz Yisroel, then your whole perspective is different.
4. miriam

   umm… where to begin?
   i especially liked the emotional blackmail “God blesses those who bless israel – ensure your blessing.” this film is in no way apolitical, josh, because it takes a particular stand on what emotions, and political opinions, one should have about the current situation! (not to mention that generally “loving israel” or whatever is political…)
   therefore, i find your assertion that “that’s entirely not the point” sort of odd- this is a fundraising/activist-izing tools for a particular political camp. the film was made to promote specific opinions – that’s the entire point!
   anyway, that said, i’m curious what you meant by “even with Eretz Yisrael we are still very much in galut.” i think i agree, though it probably means something rather different to the two of us…
   ciao, miriam
5. miriam

   ps – i thought it was funny when they said the issue is far from “settled.” tee hee.
6. Josh

   I’m fully aware that video is complete propaganda. It’s one-sided, biased, and depending on your viewpoint, inflammatory. The “that’s entirely not the point” was referring not to the content, but to the *watching* of the film.
   We can assume that the emotions of the people being forced to leave Gush Katif are genuine. Being evicted by your own goverment can normally be seen as a betrayal, especially when it is done to placate a group which blatantly and unapolagetically calls for your destruction – and occasionally acts on it. When presenting these facts on their own the result is usually propoganda. However, assuming the details were not fabricated, this “one-side” of the argument is no less unfortunate and troubling.
   The point is that even when one disagrees completely with the settlers and thinks that the disengagment is ultimately a good thing, there should be a reminder that there is still a struggle, Jews are not entirely in control of their own destiny, there is still a large segment of people out to destroy us, and that Jewish families’ lives are being turned upside down.
7. jacob

   Change the context a little and this post can be applied to the residents of New London in the aftermath of the Kelo decision.
8. Joseph

   It is not clear to me that Sharon’s decision to disengage was made, in Josh’s words, “to placate a group…which calls for your destruction”. I may be wrong, but I think Sharon justifies his decision on national security grounds independent of the emotions/opinions of the Palestinians. In fact, he has gone to great lengths to emphasize that disengagement is not a concession but, rather, a unilateral act. Opponents of disengagement argue that Palestinians will regard it as an attempt to “placate” them and, therefore, the actual motives are irrelevant (or of less importance). Indeed, there may be much cogency to this argument. Nonetheless, I think the distinction is significant. I agree that the heartache of those settlor’s losing their homes is compounded to the extent they perceive disengagement as having the deleterious effect of being interpreted by the Palestinians as an attempt to placate them. However, it is unfair (and perhaps counter-productive)to proponents of disengagement to state that their actions are driven by the desire to placate the Palestinians. The reality is far more complicated.
9. mberkow

   I agree with Josh that even staunch supporters of the plan need to be reminded that this is a tramatic event for those people that live in the Gaza Strip. This film does fill that function. I also agree with Miriam that this was not the intent of the film.
   Even after your explination I don’t see what here reminds you of galut…other than the obvious fact that we are still in it.
10. Dr. Bortz

    It seems like many of the comments here are from high brow intellectuals who are studying at some of the finest universities in the land. Why don’t you keep your high brow advice to yourselves?
11. miriam

    i was actually expecting something of th e”we don’t want to laeve our homes” tear-jerker variety, which would have been fine and in which case i would have understood what you meant. the problem with these movies is that they seem to pull a sort of bait and switch -start with the pathos of a gush katif resident fo about 30 seconds, then switch to 7 minutes of political sermons. if you thinkj the former is sad, you must agree with the latter. if it had been an actual documentary (however skewed) about the lives of the peopl affected i would have totally understood why you suggested seeing it. anyway, i suppose this is just a question of emphasis (?).
    as for the person who wanted a copy, i know they exist b/c i saw the DVD on my roomate’s shelf. i can try and find out whence it came…
12. miriam

    “Change the context a little and this post can be applied to the residents of New London in the aftermath of the Kelo decision.”
    An opinion in this week’s Hamodia (p.6) makes the same comparison.
13. jacob

    Hamodia! You read Hamodia?
14. jonny

    It doesn’t work on my computer.