This movie is pure left wing propaganda directed at Israel-Lebanon war veterans. It's extremely realistic visual setting is a trojan horse for the movie's political message.
To my fellow veterans: please, I implore you, try to see past your nostalgia for the "good times" that this realism evokes and understand the message that this shameful travesty of a movie conveys. Don't let the lefties rewrite history again.
It's quite surprising how one can understand Beaufort as "left wing propaganda" aimed at veterans from the war in Lebanon. But I guess if you're blind to the life realities and have your agenda and views set beforehand, you can read anything into everything. But I do pity s-kogan, wherever or whatever you are.
shareit's just smart.
As the compeny commander says (from hebrew): This cannot go on (their situation), either we go and *beep* them up (the Arab enemy in Lebanon, that fires on the Israeli positions, and before that, attacked the northern border towns of Israel and Israeli assets overseas, which is why Israel invaded Lebanon in the first place), or either we get the *beep* outta here and finish with this *beep*
Now that is the political statement which you call "Left wing"?
This movie is about young soldiers suffering for their inept and looser leaders (in the government and army), who know Israel is right and know what they want but don't know how to acomplish it, or don't have the guts for it (and that's why they preffered to run from Lebanon, leaving the Arab enemy on the border again, this time with tens of thousends of rockets, which, after a few attacks here and there, gave thier full roar over northern Israel in summer 2006).
Stop being a robbot and think for yourself. In the big argument inside Israel. before the movie came out, I didn't say a word, but only after I saw the movie.
nice said off2hell! I agree with you 100%
share--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it has to be somewhat left wing, because the whole concept of the IDF, particularly occupying territories is left wing (i may have exadurated a little).
the right wing is pro- returning occupied territories. Most of the soldiers in combat units are lefties!!!
so, stop being stupid. the movie is not at all about that. and is in no way a propaganda.
it's simply about reality. particularly for the 18- 20 year olds in those units, who have to deal with this impossible reality, while some of their friends may be out partying on a friday night in tel aviv or having a family dinner.
i thought it was well portrayed, and well acted. I give it a 7.5.
I agree that the movie is in no way propaganda. Actually the director seems to avoid taking sides and just presents the fact. It's a little bit like life in our country, things happen, and people seldom change opinions. The same event will be commented completely different depending on what side of the political dispute one is. This film follow life from this respect.
share"Occupying territories" is left wing? Its a fact that Israel occupies Palestinian territories you idiot.
sharethis is my first post ever and i'm sad to say its to respond to a silly remark by a another ignorant person.
I came from canada to israel 8 years ago. Israel occupies palestine is like saying the United States occupies Native Indian land.
Would you agree to that logic? I think not. Whatever wrongs may have taken place by the Americans in the early days doesn't mean now that California or Arizona are really "Native Indian" occupied territories?
Furthermore you and all your troll mongering friends need to be put into a cave because your level of intelligence shows it to be your natural level of understanding.
Palestine was owned by the british until in 1948 Israel declared its own country. This means your "friends" the arabs who live in Israel and want to fight in any way they can against anything non-muslim use their "Palestine is our country it was taken" and you pathetically stupid people believe whatever someone says against Israel/Jews.
I live here and the facts on the ground are way off. I can't wait until 'karma' pays all you scumbags back for causing more death of innocent quality people who are at the hands of the arabs that the neighbouring countries don't even want!
I find your viewpoint interesting mrTorah, as you do make a good point.
Yet one problem is that Israel considers itself a closed country to the point of someones racial background or religious sentiment is the reason for them being allowed in, and considering itself a single faith state, in an extremely diverse region, and with a diversity of people already living in the land that they took. Doesn't this technically make the state the same as these groups that wish to "fight in any way they can against anything non-muslim" but against Muslims.
I have been to Israel many times on work as a teacher of Jewish studies and Religious Education and have found the levels of Ignorance there quite atrocious, even to the point that a guest lecturer (He was a british Muslim) was treated with great hostility for being a british muslim even though he was invited to speak.
Also, with regards to your comment that "Israel occupies palestine is like saying the United States occupies Native Indian land." I would like to point out that this is true, yet both sides pushed the populations into enclosed igolated areas which they controlled, and tried to remove the beliefs of those people from their land. So it is like saying that in a way, except that Israel and Palestine was in the last 60 years, and therefore still something considered recent in comparrison.
Between the extremists on both sides there is a level of understanding comparable to that of a cheese sandwich. Both sides need to click that a good 90% of their people would be happy to live alongside the world regardless of religion or where your family originates.
Angel you and MrTorah are both WRONG.
First Mr. Torah there was always a native Arab population in Pre-Israel Palestine - the Zionists (of whom I am one) did not come to an empty territory. They did however purchase the land that they pioneered from the late 19th century onwards from Arab land owners (citizens of the Ottoman Empire) through the auspices of the Jewish Agency created by the founders of Zionism (Herzl - Basel Zurich World Zionist Congress approx. 1904). There was NEVER an intention of moving the native population out, but to share the land.
With the demise of the Ottoman Empire and the British mandate over Palestine a new wind swept through. Those who in Palestine who had sided with the allies during WW I both Arab and Jewish expected / nay were promised certain accomodations with the Allied Victory. Also at this time was a Arab national movement born (remember lawrence of Arabia). The British were in a bind - they promised a "homeland in palestine" to the Jews and promised to support Arab national movements. By 1948 with the British total loss of control of the situation, the U.N. declared Palestine divided between the populations.
Sadly the native population was misled by their leaders and fled their homes or took up arms against the new Israeli State. The well-to-do Arabs of Palestine took their money and left for Beirut, Amman, and other Arab territories leaving the general poor populus to make due in refugee camps.
Israel NEVER sought to send the Arab population onto reservations sir. They sought accomodation, but were rebuffed at every turn. So 60 years onward we have the consequences - what King Abdullah called "Fortress Israel". The Israelis armed to the teeth just to survive & taking preventative measures like the Lebanon War to squash terrorist (born and bred in those very refugee camps) from murdering those Israelis on their Northern border.
My opinion for what its worth - We are going to have to come to another 1948 solution (with some adjustments to the borders - so Israel is SECURE) and everybody is going to have to share everything. Or spend another 60 years in refugee camps and fortresses.
Umm, wow, it's crazy that there have been all of these posts and still the truth hasn't fully been fleshed out.
First off, in the spirit of Andre Bazin, with film being a social document, any war movie could be considered anti-war, as it depicts horrors that few will ever see and have to live with. In this sense, any war movie could be considered propaganda, as it brings to the fore situations that are obscure, and thus only able to be emotionally grasped-at by the viewers.
There have been some good points made here. There have also been some complete affronts to objectivity. It's understandable, as this is a very powerful and paradigmatic situation.
1. It is the center- and right-wing Jews that believe in maintaining control of the territories. Of course they don't all feel this way, and there are certainly "liberal" Jews who want this as well, but this - territorial maintenance, wall-building, etc - is a conservative approach to solving the problem. Kadima is more centrist than liberal, but I suppose if you consider them liberal, then they do agree with territorial maintenance of the big settlements.
2. In response to the previous poster, evegale, says:
"Sadly the native population was misled by their leaders and fled their homes or took up arms against the new Israeli State. The well-to-do Arabs of Palestine took their money and left for Beirut, Amman, and other Arab territories leaving the general poor populus to make due in refugee camps.
Israel NEVER sought to send the Arab population onto reservations sir. They sought accommodation."
Quite a bit of this is true, and certainly most Jewish people didn't seek harm of the Palestinians. However, not all Jews sought accommodation. Caught up as they were (understandably) in the hope and desire for a new land, finally (!), many did deplorable things, displacing Palestinians who were not swayed by their leaders, who simply wanted to stay home, in places they'd lived for generations. An extremely conservative estimate puts the number at 500k, but of course some chose to leave, rather than face a forced deportation (as many of them did).
Any things built on top of this infrastructure of history is skewed and manipulated most of the time, and it's sad that both sides can't shed their more harmful us vs. them mentalities and find a one- or two-state peace negotiation. As long as Hamas espouses a no-Israel viewpoint, and won't accept no stake in Jerusalem or much of the west bank (now settled by Jewish peoples), there will be no end.
The problem with all this is that no one understands the crux of the matter:
Jews didn't have a "homeland", it's pretty much that simple - Arabs did.
Everyone who is a student of history understands the original intention of The British Mandate of Palestine and (later) of the UN Partition Plan, but it takes a more sophisticated mind to truly grasp the intent of both endeavors. I don't think anyone would disagree that in both The British Mandate of Palestine and The UN Partition Plan, the true, underlying desires of the bureaucrats were that with the creation of the Israeli state, there would be an uneventful exodus of the Arab contingent.
Of course the politicians had to include accords that catered to the indigenous population of Arab persons, but everyone involved was hoping (silently) that all the Arabs would leave, granting the Jews something that Arabs already had: a homeland of their own.
Of course, in everyone's heart-of-hearts they *fantasized* that this dual state might be possible, but no one truly believed that it would materialize. What could the politicians do though? They couldn't eject the non-Jewish population, but surely they secretly hoped that these peoples would leave (as many did) and they would leave the homeland for Jews.
What they all underestimated was the importance of a very small plot of land called "The Temple Mount". There was NO way that Muslims were going to relinquish this holy place, third in its holiness - only The Kaaba in Mecca and Medina overshadow its importance. No one also was so foolish to believe that sooner or later Jews would seek to take back this temple that was (in their mind) rightfully theirs.
This is what SO many people do not understand! Both Jews and Muslims each view the others presence on the temple mount as an ABOMINATION. Both groups view this plot of land of the highest importance to their future (and in some cases) fundamental to the fulfillment of prophesy.
The Jews deeply desire to expel the Muslims from the Temple Mount and to destroy and remove utterly the Mosque that sits upon the Holy of Holies. The Muslims greatly desire to drive out the Jews from "ownership" of the Temple Mount and to destroy and remove utterly any Jewish presence (especially excavations that have "damaged" the Dome of the Rock).
Anyone who believes that Jews *and* Muslims don't want to utterly annihilate the other from Israel is a FOOL.
Jews view Muslims as "thieves" of their religion. Muhammad began his career preaching that the Jews were "People of the Book" and were correct in all matters about God. When the Jews rejected Muhammad as prophet, he changed his view to be hostile toward Jews, but maintained his belief that the (majority) of Jewish history was true, but the Jews had gotten a lot wrong and it was now the Muslims that would set things in order.
Muslims view Jews as having abandoned the True God (Allah) and therefore they are "infidels", which can be (and in many cases they are commanded to be) destroyed utterly. This is something Muhammad did himself to three tribes of Jews that lived in Yathrib (later Medina).
The hostility between these two groups is clear, each claims to have the true revelation concerning the God of Abraham. Each claims to be the rightful owners of the Temple Mount. Each views the other as perverting the Word of God. There CAN never be any true peace between these two groups, if the adherents of each religion are loyal and true to their own beliefs.
One thing is true though, no one in their right mind can say that anyone truly believed that the Jews and Muslims (or the non-Jewish population of Israel and it's surrounding areas) would be able to live in harmony - not when Jewish interests grew powerful enough to challenge the Muslims. Sure, there were periods of "peace", while Jews lived under Muslim rule, because they had no other choice than to accept the rule of the Muslims. However, like any people living under the yoke of a "foreign" ruler, they sought to be free and establish their own rule. No Jew was happy paying the "non-Muslim Tax", the Jizya, and certainly no Muslim would have been happy paying a similar non-Jewish tax and living under the rule of the Jews - and this truth has been borne out very clearly since the inception of the Jewish state of Israel.
"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus
[deleted]
I'm almost positive that most of the soldiers are right-wingers, because lefters are AGAINST defending ourselves, and righters are FOR it. Soldiers DEFEND us. If they didn't WANT to fight, then the wouldn't. Simple as that. People join the military either WANTING to fight, or EXPECTING to fight.
shareI'd caution you not to stereotype and generalize. It is a tactic generally reserved for children. Words like ALL & BEST cheapen almost every argument.
A soldier does his duty - his motivations, beliefs, desires are as varied as grains of sand on a Tel Aviv beach.
Today, Palestinian Arabs control Palestinian Arab regions of the West Bank--the occupation is over. Israel controls Jewish regions of the West Bank. Those regions, by the way King Freddie, are part of Israel. You're wrong.
The British occupied Palestine until 1948. The British controlled it. I don't know if owned is exactly the right word, but it gets the point across and doesn't deserve being called stupid.
When Israel fought for independence in 1948, it could have conquered the West Bank and incorporated it. Israel didn't, because Israel is a democracy and conquering the West Bank had an Arab majority. Instead, Jordan for all intents and purposes occupied the West Bank--no problem. In 1967, when Israel began to occupy--the Palestinian Arabs did had a big problem. Seems antisemitic to me.
Israel continued to occupy the West Bank as a safety net and as a bargaining chip. Instead of returning it to Arab control, Israel offered the land back to Arafat in exchange for peace. Arafat got greedy, he wanted all of the land--including Jewish areas--and he rejected the offer. The Palestinians would have a state if they stopped targeting innocent Jews. Never mind that the West Bank is a historically Jewish place.
In the meantime, while Palestinians refuse to end the violence, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank was the most moral occupation ever. Israel provides Palestinian Arabs with health care and the results have been an improvement in Palestinian Arab quality of life.
Now, after Oslo (1993), there is no occupation Palestinian Arab regions of the West Bank are under Palestinian Authority control. Granted, some would argue with varying degrees of success that there is an occupation in the 24% of the West Bank where Jews and Arabs both live--there, Israeli and Palestinian governments share control.
King Freddie, please stop spreading distortions.
"The occupation is over"
Unless you want to fly a plane, leave your country and return, buy and sell goods freely, have electricity 24 hours a day, be confident that you're not in the sites of an Israeli sniper at any given time...
Apart from that, sure - the Palestinians are free.
Unbelievable.
In response to your other claim, king freddie, that " there really isnt a big difference between them [Israeli settlers] and nazis," I'd like to point out some major differences.
a)Nazis believed in racial purity. They believed that anybody who is not Aryan does not deserve life. The most extreme of Israeli settlers--most who the media never show are more moderate--believe that Israel is a place that God gave to Jews. To paraphrase, all people have the right to live their lives in freedom throughout the world, but only Jews should be voting citizens in Israel. Maybe you, like most Israelis, disagree. But a comparison to Nazi-ism is inflammatory.
b) Nazis killed people. Israeli settlers like to talk about their ideals, but they don't actually kill anyone. I could probably count settler terrorist attacks on one hand, whereas there have been thousands of terrorist attacks against innocent Jews perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs. Al-Aqsa Martyrs brigade, the militant wing of Mahmud Abbas's supposedly moderate party (Fatah), has killed 130 innocent Jews in terrorist attacks. Hamas, who the Palestinian Arab people voted into power, have killed 482 Jews in suicide bombings and maimed many more. And those are only two of many Palestinian Arab terror organizations. There are no active Israeli settler terrorist organizations.
c) Extremist Israeli settlers, who are more moderate than the typical Palestinian Arab, make up an extreme fringe of the Israeli political spectrum. They are the radicals. Imagine if Israelis only saw Ralph Nader in reports about America on TV. That would deceive Israelis into thinking that Nader represents a large segment of American society. No matter what anyone thinks of Nader, surely we can all agree that he's on the fringe of our political spectrum.
When you compare sides to the Nazis, take a look back at World War II. The Nazis victimized the Jews, many of whom would eventually move on to Israel. The Palestinian Arab leadership allied with the Nazis. The official leader of the Palestinians, Grand Mufti Al-Husseini, was a consultant to Hitler on the holocaust--specifically, the systematic murder of Jews. Al-Husseini planned to return from his time spent with Hitler to build death camps for Jews in Palestine. The Palestinian Arabs may take their cues from Hitler, but the Jews certainly do not.
Sorry NGG921, but all your points are WRONG.
"a)Nazis believed in racial purity. They believed that anybody who is not Aryan does not deserve life."
Israel believes in RELIGIOUS purity. In Israel, certain laws are discriminatory against non-jews. This raises Israel to being little more than a whiter version of Saudi Arabia, since they are both theocracies. The funny thing is, Israel is 'supposed' to be better since the women there can drive - never mind the fact that they are little more than cannon fodder for the army. The Israeli model of expansion in the West Bank closely follows the Aparteid model, as Nelson Mandela can attest.
"To paraphrase, all people have the right to live their lives in freedom throughout the world, but only Jews should be voting citizens in Israel."
Yes, it's only the people who DON'T live in Israel that don't have the right to live, isn't it?
"But a comparison to Nazi-ism is inflammatory."
But accurate.
"Nazis killed people."
And Israel doesn't?
"Israeli settlers like to talk about their ideals, but they don't actually kill anyone."
And I suppose all those Palestinean civilians killed by Israeli bombs dropped dead of heart attacks minutes before the devices actually hit them?
"I could probably count settler terrorist attacks on one hand, whereas there have been thousands of terrorist attacks against innocent Jews perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs."
First off, I object to your wording of the settlers as 'innocent'. You are NOT innocent if you suddenly park your fatself on land forcibly confiscated by your government - fully KNOWING the risks beforehand - and then cry when something bad happens to you. P.S. The attacks on civilians by the IDF will require more than a few hands to count 'em all - how many kids die or are maimed each week?
"There are no active Israeli settler terrorist organizations."
Why do they need any when the IDF does their dirty work for them?
"Extremist Israeli settlers, who are more moderate than the typical Palestinian Arab,...."
Come again? In a poll, only 59% of the typical so-called "moderate" Israel wanted peace in the Middle East. This was the lowest figure in ALL the ME countries polled.
"No matter what anyone thinks of Nader, surely we can all agree that he's on the fringe of our political spectrum."
Yes, he is a fringe. Because fighting for consumer rights so that big companies don't overcharge and screw you over, respect for the environment and plain common sense are at best, fringe elements of the American political system. P.S. 'our' political system? Nader is an American. You are not Israeli? If you like Israel so much, go and live there!
"The Palestinian Arabs may take their cues from Hitler, but the Jews certainly do not."
Yup, you lot prefer to take YOUR cues from the Aparteid regime!
P.S. king freddie, in response to your post, it amazes me that people like you love sending your trash over to our counties but when the same happens to you, you lot whine and bitch over it. If your collective populations got off their collective behinds and did all the dirty work that the immigrants do, you wouldn't have large migrant populations in the first place. I used to live in Dubai, it was great until all these catholic Phillippinos flooded in because of the dot.com burst. Amazing how quickly you christians rumble into muslim countries when you got eight kids and can't afford to feed themselves, eh? I lost my job and had to head home over to India. But at least I don't bitch and whine about it, like most 'civilized' i.e., white people love to do.(Judging by a lot of the posts on immigration, whining is the ONE thing you lot ARE good at!). Now, in India I see all these white trailer park trash coming in from the US, Australia and Europe, expecting to be treated like royalty and indulging in other extra-curricular activity like drunk driving, road rage, Kiddie fiddling and the like, all in all making a nuisance of themselves but we don't cause an uproar or indulge in scaremongering tactics all over the media and clog various website message boards grumbling about how YOU don't want the same people who mow your lawn, clean your trash and deliver your mail or pizza on lousy pay without complaining because you're too lazy to do so in your country, even though the alternative - higher taxes, grotty jobs and longer hours - is not an option.
In short, stop whinging. OK?
Alright, who's next on hand to get a hard slap-reality check? .......
Okay folks, you're all right, we're all wrong and in fact, nobody really cares. That's a board about Beaufort, and most certainly not about your frustration of historical accuracy. Aren't you tired of quoting the past to justify your present actions and opinions? Look out for what may come and strive for a better tomorrow. Your attitudes only sustain the objects of your criticisms so think it over without seeking to prevail the debate.
share[deleted]
Too bad this subject line was the first one on the message board. I saw absolutely no politics or propaganda in this film; not even any taking of sides, for either the Lebanese or the Israelis. The writer must only be speaking from hatred of the Israelis, since we never got to see anyone from the other side. I did get the message that decisions that come down from high command can really be frustrating to the soldiers in the front lines.
The directing, photography, acting, writing, music, just everything in this film was outstanding. I don't watch too many movies a second time these days, but this one I will be replaying very soon.
'I don't watch too many movies a second time these days, but this one I will be replaying very soon'.
I find a sharp tap on the front of my DVD player often frees up a sticking mechanism, allowing me to eject the faulty disc.
[deleted]