Defending Waltz With Bashir
One day after the August 2006 ceasefire that ended the Second Lebanon War, Ben-Yishai went to the dahiyeh, the Hezbollah stronghold in Beirut’s southern suburbs, and compiled a report for Yedioth Aharonoth, Israel’s largest-selling daily newspaper. The newspaper published a photograph of him standing on the ruins of a building that was bombed by the Israeli Air Force during the war. Ben-Yishai also traveled incognito to Syria in September 2007, shortly after the Israeli Air Force bombed a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria; he visited and photographed the bombed site and wrote a report for Yedioth.
The accusation that Ben-Yishai is lying about having telephoned Ariel Sharon to alert him to a possible massacre in Sabra and Shatila is equally ridiculous: Ben-Yishai was very close to Sharon, as he is to many other senior politicians and army generals. As a famous and widely-respected journalist in a small, tightly-knit community like Israel, the idea that he would risk his reputation by making up a story for the benefit of Folman and the viewers of his film just defies credibility.
Error number five: There is nothing unusual or nefarious in an Israeli film director/producer seeking funding from European sources. In fact, all Israeli filmmakers are forced to seek funding abroad because the Israel Film Foundation gives partial grants and the Israeli market is too small to be a source of adequate private funding. In every case, the filmmaker puts together a package of funding from the Israeli Film Foundation, European grants, and a little bit of private money (if they’re lucky). The Germans and the French simply happen to be unusually generous patrons of the arts, so Israeli filmmakers turn to them for funding. This does not make the film less Israeli, for heaven’s sake. Just check the list of sponsors for Israeli films that have been distributed abroad over the past few years — like Walking on Water, The Bubble, and The Band’s Visit. By the way, Arte also sponsored a video documentary series called Gaza-Sderot, life in spite of everything. Take a look and then tell me if you really think Arte is biased against Israel.
The factual errors are bad enough, but Mr. Rosenthal’s conviction that WWB is actually anti-Semitic, or that it contributes to anti-Semitism, is worse. It is a twisted misinterpretation that is an insult to the director, who is the son of concentration camp survivors. It also speaks to the author’s deep insecurity, bordering on paranoia, about his Jewish identity.
A portrait of a dissolute IDF officer who likes to watch porn is, according to Mr. Rosenthal, an anti-Semitic image. Does the writer believe that Jews abstain from watching pornography — that we are purer than other human beings? Or is he positing that Jews should deny watching porn, in order to avoid upsetting the anti-Semites (who probably watch porn too)?
The porn clip in WWB is German, by the way, because the most risqué porn in the 1970s and early 1980s came out of that country. The German phenomenon, which gained momentum after West Germany became the first European state to legalize porn, was called the Sex-Welle, or sex wave. It was little known in then-provincial Israel, circa 1982, because video cassette players had not yet arrived and porn cinemas did not exist. The scene of the officer watching the film made a strong impression on Folman as a young soldier simply because that was the first time in his life he saw a porno flick.
As for Rosenthal’s description of “a veritable orgy of Israeli violence and vulgarity,” I suggest he read a little war literature. War is violent by definition. Soldiers always behave with vulgarity. Innocents are always killed in the confusion. Soldiers are always afraid and clueless. Israeli soldiers are no different. There is nothing particularly “Israeli” about the violence and vulgarity in Waltz With Bashir.
It is certainly true that Holocaust references are a recurring theme in WWB. That is because Israel was created “from the ashes of the Holocaust.” Anyone who grew up in Israel during the 1960s and 1970s, as Folman did, would have been surrounded by survivors the age of his parents, and he would have studied the Holocaust in school. References to ghettos, death camps, and gas chambers are, unfortunately, a recurring cultural meme in Israel society. Of course Folman knows that Sabra and Shatila were not Auschwitz. He never makes that claim in the film, either. Ron Ben-Yishai does say that the sight of a young Palestinian boy holding up his hands under the guard of armed men reminds him of the iconic image of the boy in the Warsaw ghetto. These are the cultural metaphors that Israelis use as verbal shorthand. Folman is simply documenting the way Israelis think and talk within the framework of the Jewish people’s collective trauma.
I would also like to point out that the Israeli Foreign Ministry has been actively promoting Waltz With Bashir, via its embassies and consulates all over the world. Does Mr. Rosenthal genuinely believe that the Israeli government would promote an anti-Semitic film?
Everyone I know who has seen WWB — Israeli and non-Israelis, film critics, and film buffs — has been deeply affected. All of my friends who did their military service either in Lebanon or in the occupied territories told me that watching the film had unleashed flashbacks and made them realize that their time in the army had left them more scarred than they had cared to admit. One of the ongoing conversations within Israeli society is, and has been for years, the emotional price that mandatory army service exacts from our young men and women. That is why Folman’s film has touched a nerve with Israelis: he succeeded in giving a balanced, nuanced, moderate voice to those inarticulate emotions that so many Israeli combat veterans carry with them.
Israel is a fantastically creative society. The literary, cinematic, musical, and theatrical output is impressive by any standards; for a small country, it is astonishing. On any given night in Tel Aviv, a city of less than half a million, there are so many cultural events, from opera to fringe theater, that I simply don’t have time to see and experience everything. One of the driving forces for all this creativity is an admirable ability to engage in self-examination and self-criticism. Israelis like Ari Folman long ago learned that there is no contradiction between loving one’s country and acknowledging its flaws and errors. What a pity that Mr. Rosenthal’s fear of anti-Semitism blinds him to the artistic value of one of the best films to come out of Israel this past decade.
Update: A response from John Rosenthal:
In her attempted defense of Ari Folman’s Waltz with Bashir, Lisa Goldman asserts that my two-part exposé of the film is “riddled with errors of fact.” This would be a serious charge — except that Goldman appears not to know what a fact is. A look at her examples reveals that what she calls matters of fact are just her opinions — matters of interpretation, let us say — elevated to the status of fact. Goldman contests my characterization of WWB as depicting a “veritable orgy of Israeli violence and vulgarity,” but she does not deny any of the facts on which this characterization is based. She does not deny that Israeli soldiers are depicted killing defenseless animals. She does not deny that Israeli soldiers are depicted killing a family in a blue Mercedes. She does not deny that scenes of Israeli shelling are accompanied by a rock soundtrack blaring “I bombed Beirut every day, Sure we kill some innocent along the way.” She does not deny that an Israeli officer is depicted sitting in his underwear in an occupied Lebanese villa watching porn. She does not deny any of this. She merely insists that somehow the scenes are not “about” what they appear to be about, because “war is hell” and people watch porn and, anyway, Folman says so.
Goldman even manages to stylize a series of extensively documented facts about the financing of the film into a “kooky conspiracy theory.” I did not propose any “theory” in this connection. The facts are what they are: the film was largely financed by German and French sources, with the Franco-German public television ARTE being, in Folman’s own words, the “principal sponsor.”
Goldman raises only one point that even appears to be factual: namely, as concerns the status — fictive or real — of “Carmi Cnaan.” It is Cnaan who recounts the “blue Mercedes” scene in the film. It is also Cnaan who “recalls” seeing Palestinian body parts stored in formaldehyde. Goldman asserts that “it is untrue that Carmi Cnaan is a fictional figure.” Well, in the promotional materials that I cite, Folman is asked, “Are the persons interviewed in the film all real?” He responds “seven out of nine.” The two figures that he identifies as not being real are Boaz Rein-Buskila and Carmi Cnaan. Now, what would Goldman call a person who is not real? Apparently, she would call him “fictional,” since this is the term she uses, even though, as it happens, I did not use the term in my article. Moreover, “Cnaan” is not merely a “pseudonym,” as Goldman puts it. It is a pseudonym connected to a pseudo-voice and a pseudo-face — thus creating the illusion of a real person like the other “seven out of nine” real people interviewed in the film. It is this mixing of fact and fiction, of the real and the imaginary, that renders Folman’s film such an effective tool of propaganda, but surely disqualifies it from being taken seriously as “documentary.”
As I already noted, Folman insists that the recollections of “Cnaan” are based on the testimonial of a real person. We have no way of knowing how closely or remotely or whether it is even so. Maybe there really is an Israeli falafel salesman in the Netherlands with whom Folman served in Lebanon. Or maybe not. But there is one thing we do know: if this person exists at all, he refused to have his name — or voice or image — associated with the narration in Folman’s film.
All of my friends who did their military service either in Lebanon or in the occupied territories
With this comment the author of this rebuttal trashes her purported even-handedness and shows her true colors. Her colors are that the Jewish Ancestral homeland, north and south of Jerusalem, are the “occupied territories” as much as Lebanon, whereas wherever she lives is somehow legitimate. By defending WWB she defends her cultural milieu which regards all Jewish self-defense as malevolent, asking the perrenial why cant we just get along, and curtailing any real questions regarding Israel’s predicament in the hostile eastern mediterranean. The same milieu will castigate anyone taking contributions from the American Bible-belt for any purpose, especiallly to support the arts, but will lionize anyone as long as they toe the anti-Jewish-sovereignty, anti-American lie. The French and German funds are wholly directed at crippling the Jewish endeavor, and Jews willingt to participate in self-flagellation are the prime recipients of lavish funding. So, dont take her at face value.
TO: Lisa Goldman
RE: Okay
I’ve not read Rosenthal’s columns. I’ve not seen the movie.
However, considering that it’s up for a ‘Oscar’ is already something of an ‘indicator’. If it actually WINS the Oscar for best foreign film, that will be another ‘indicator’.
Indicators of ‘what’, you might ask.
Indicators that Rosenthal is right and you’re wrong.
Over the last decade the Oscars have become a political stamp of approval as opposed to their original intent. Just like the Nobel prizes, imagine a mass murderer getting a ‘Peace Prize’.
An anti-War movie depicting the Israelis in a bad light? Gee. Who’d a thunk it possible…what with all the ‘progressives’ who love Israel pulling for Hamas to indiscriminantly lob rockets into Jewish communities.
I’ve seen Hollywood bury lies and propaganda in their films often enough to know that they’d LOVE to see the same in a foreign film about Israel.
I may have to get this film, out of the public library, and see it. But don’t be surprised if I eject it in disgust within 10 minutes. I did the same with Pelican Brief after the babbling idiot dimbo in the class on law says the courts were wrong about enforcing the law. That was enough for me to start retching…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially insofar as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent. -- Adolf Hitler]
“It isn’t easy being a Jew!”
Folman seems to have created a Rorscharch test for everyone interested in Jewish, Arab, pro-war, and anti-war identity. For this alone his film deserves an Oscar. Let the debate rage on, as long as nobody dies.
Thank you, Lisa
I thought it was an excellent rebuttal, especially referring to the film’s funding. Without European money there will be no Israeli cinema; I guess the Israeli-French co-production “Turn left at the end of the world” (2004) is antisemitic too.
TO: Chuck Pelto
Re: You’re an idiot.
You haven’t seen the film. Nor read the Rosenthal articles. Yet you allow yourself to comment anyway. So I stand corrected, you’re not an idiot: you’re also a jackass.
The Oscars, just like the Nobel prizes of literature, have been consecrating everything and anything that are pro-Jewish or pro-Israeli (which is probably the worthless Beaufort got a nomination in the first place, but giving it an award was too much of stretch.). Frankly, if I see another “Pianist” receive awards not because of the intrinsic quality of the film but because it’s about Jews, I’m going to dismiss the Oscars as a propagandatist mascarade.
“Director Ari Folman has said specifically in many interviews — like this one in Salon — that Waltz With Bashir is a universal anti-war story.”
What does this mean, universal anti-war? Is Folman anti- the Allies’ participation in World War II? Or is he anti-Nazism? You can’t be both. Is he anti- Israel’s participation in the 1948, 1967, and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars? Would he oppose the UN or the African Union sending a military force to militarily protect the genocide victims in Darfur by fighting against their oppressors. because that would be war? Is he pro-Taliban–since the only way to topple them in Afghanistan was by war? And do we need anti-war films because the rest of us are pro-war?
Dear Ms. Goldman:
There is an evident trend in the world today to de-legitimize Israel. It’s most extreme expression is in Iran, but there are more subdued variants in Europe and even in the US, e.g. the case of Rowan Laxton in Britain.
Taking funds from Europeans in order to bash the State of Israel and its military, even indirectly, certainly reinforces these trends and will eventually be a detrimental to Israel.
One thing to keep in mind is that most Western world leaders are still of an older generation and grew up during a time when it was less acceptable to be openly anti-Israel, and even more so openly anti-Semitic. However, today the atmosphere is changing and it won’t be long before the rein is passed on to a generation of leaders who grew up in schools, universities, and were constantly exposed to a mainstream media, who is openly anti-Israel, sometimes anti-Semitic. Why should patriotic Israelis give a hand to hasten this trend?
Constructive self-criticism is always positive. However, when it’s done in the most public forum in a adversarial atmosphere, the damage far outweighs the benefit.
In this sense, Folman’s film is irresponsible.
–
Gilbert Weinstein
Further to Ms. Goldman:
The up-and-coming generation of Western leaders whom Mr. Weinstein mentions in talkback 7 also usually have the “war is bad” philosophy and, because they see Israel involved in war so often on their TV screens, tend to think Israel must be a bad, violent, aggressive country. Two questions: do you think Israel is likely to need to fight Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran in the future, and that this is likely to be justified? and (2) if so, is a film like Waltzing with Bashir likely to help Israel or harm it?
Joel
The simple response to any film with a point of view of which one disagrees–is to make a better film that tells what you consider to be a more accurate story.
I never cease to be amazed when conservatives simply express outrage at art, as if liberals or leftists seem to be the only folks on the planet who can raise money for productions. If that is the case, that conservatives can’t figure out how to produce or make movies, then the problem with biased press coverage or biased art, film or literature isn’t the bias. The problem is the incompetence of those hoping for more balance.
I agree with Debbie Schlussel who wrote about this film “At Sunday’s Academy Awards, “Waltz With Bashir” is nominated for Best Foreign Language Film. And while the foreign language it is in is Hebrew, it might as well be in Arabic or Farsi. That’s because while neither Ahmadinejad nor the Muslim world could possibly make something more anti-Israel . . . and, frankly, anti-Semitic, they’ll simply love this movie. And that’s why I’m betting on it to win the Oscar. It’s high quality Bin Laden cinema.” Read the whole thing:
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/004810print.html
There is no wonder: almost all Israeli films are like this. Israel is not an exception: there are a lot of people in the USA who dislike constitution, the American exceptionalism, its “nationalism” and its military.
TO: Micah
RE: I’d Recommend…
“TO: Chuck Pelto
Re: You’re an idiot.
You haven’t seen the film. Nor read the Rosenthal articles. Yet you allow yourself to comment anyway. So I stand corrected, you’re not an idiot: you’re also a jackass.” — Micah
…that you stop ‘projecting’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Almost only leftists make movies nowadays. That is why most of Hollywood sucks and why it is mostly losing money. Take a look at the terribly weak films nominated for the Oscars: with the possible exception of “The Dark Knight”, there is nothing worth five minutes of anyone’s time. All are idiotic films with some PC message instead of content. So is in Israel, so is in Europe, so is everywhere: modern cinema is little less than leftist propaganda. That’s why it sucks.
TO: Micah
RE: Perhaps….
“…you’re not an idiot: you’re also a jackass.” — Micah
…you should also take a few more classes in English, as it is obviously at least a tertiary language for you.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. What was I saying about ‘projection’?
TO: Micah
RE: For Explanation Purposes, Corrections in English
You stated….
“…you’re not an idiot: you’re also a jackass.” — Micah
The proper way to put that would have been…
“….you’re not JUST and idiot. You’re also a jackass.” [Note: Emphasis added.]
The point being you were either correcting yourself…an option I seriously suspect as most true idiots…which you’re projecting….don’t have the brains nor the conscience to detect they had erred in the first place. Or you were going to augment your comment by claiming that along with being an ‘idiot’ you thought I was a ‘jackass’ as well.
But since you do not have enough understanding of the English language to catch the significance of your mis-statement, you are the one who actually looks like an idiot AND a jackass as well. All in one paragraph. Neatly done, Micah.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Only Democrats are ‘jackasses’. It’s their logo. My logo is a rampaging elephant.
P.P.S. Did you enjoy, or at least benefit from, being ‘trampled’?
TO: Micah
RE: Error
Please pardon my additional “d” in the “JUST and idiot” (above).
It should read….
“….you’re not JUST an idiot. You’re also a jackass.” [Note: Emphasis added.]
My typo. I apologize.
Back to working on supper. Yakatori and sushi ‘California’ rolls.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[....I'm out of saki??!?!?!??! What a world!!!!!]
Chuck,
Micha made a great point regarding your need to comment on things you know nothing about and your response is to get serially and obsessively pedantic? Just so you know where I come from, I think the Arabs in Judea and Samaria, as well as Gaza and in the rest of Israel, should be sent to live in Palestine, otherwise known as Jordan. My father served in the 6-Day War, my uncle in the Yom Kippur War, and I and my cousin served in Lebanon. My grandmother used to tour LA schools to tell her story as a concentration camp survivor. My grandfather’s testimony of his survival, recorded by UCLA, is used in universities around the country because of how well his recollections align with the known sequence of WWII events and his experience of the Holocaust. I dined on the lap of Scoop Jackson, once in my grandparents’ home and again in the Congressional dining hall because of my family’s involvement in lobbying for Israel. I met President Reagan, General Haig, Edward Kennedy and I’m sure many more that I didn’t recognize as a boy. I was allowed to press the Yea button for Representative Gettison (D-Ill) because my grandparents worked with a more moderate Democratic Party as they did with the Republican party, all to do their part in serving this country and the Jewish State. I list this not to express pride in how high my family rose from the ashes but rather with how committed my gene-pool is to the survival of Israel. All of us have contributed in our small way to the survival of the Jewish State. That said, Micha made more sense in her tertiary language then you did in your first.
I have not seen this film, nor, given its description and above commentary, am I ever likely to.
While I defend any artist’s right to express themselves, the artist has to be conscious of the world in which he lives. With the world so openly hostile to Israel and Jews, why would anyone – especially a Jew – want to add fuel to the already lit bonfires? To what end? Yes, being “anti-war” is noble. But in the real world it is childish and idiotic. No sane person wants war. But going to war is sadly still necessary to defend oneself and one’s country and to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
If showing how horrible war is was the filmmaker’s intention, he should have set the piece on Mars with two fictional armies/nations.
Jews/Israelis showing how bad they can be as a way of trying to prove we’re just like everyone else is one lousy example.
Yes, and the fact that this has been recognized by the Academy is a major warning bell as well.
What a sense of deja vu I had when I read Lisa Goldman’s puerile and silly review of this Israel bashing, anti Semitic, and largely fictional movie. I am a Viet Nam veteran, as well as a 14 year veteran of the Israel Defence Forces Medical Corps, and in all my service I have never seen the sorts of things Ms. Goldman describes in this movie, nor have I ever encountered IDF soldiers or officers who behaved in the manner she describes. Of course, the American Left said the same sorts of things about those of us Viet Nam vets, you know we were all baby killers, indiscriminate murderers of civilians, uncaring, drugged up, psychotic violence freaks of the lowest order who burned down entire villages with their inhabitants inside for the fun of it, and even produced large budget Hollywood movies “proving” these untrue and ridiculous charges.
I realize that Ms. Goldman actually lives in Israel, but I wonder which Israel she actually resides in. I am more than willing to bet that she has never in all her experience here met the sort of Israeli Jews that Mr. Folman depicts in his film. Further, I would suggest that Mr. Folman produced this film and financed it in Europe because he firmly believed that the lies and false characterizations he produced would bring him fame, fortune, and an Oscar. After all, he hates Israel, and knows full well that in the foreign market, and to some small extent the Israeli market, hammering Israel and and fomenting hatred of Israel is usually a sure way to make money. The trouble is he went to the United States, where most Americans have the sense to see through his falsehoods and fictions, and thus they didn’t award him a prize for his perverted, false, and twisted imaginary story of Israel.
I would suggest that Mr. Folman be ashamed of himself for the terrible movie he produced and the lies he has disseminated about Israel, but I know that as a Left wing Israeli Jew he has long since lost any sense of honor or honesty or even simple morality and has lost any sense of shame.
Again, I ask why does Pajamas Media continue to print the silly, puerile, ridiculous nonsense produced by Lisa Goldman? This woman clearly is totally out of touch with Israeli society and seems to get her news and commentary from the Haaretz newspaper, the smallest, most hard Left wing, most anti Israel and anti Jewish newspaper in Israel. Either that or she just makes this stuff up herself, which is just what Haaretz does too!
Rosenthal’s original critique of Waltz with Bashir and his subsequent response to Lisa Goldman are, quite frankly, ridiculous. I watched this film a while back with two other friends – all three of us fiercely love and support Israel and consider ourselves center-right on the political spectrum in regards to Israel. We all thought this was an excellent film with a compelling story and amazing, innovative animation. None of us thought there was anything anti-Israel about the film.
It isn’t anti-Israel to depict Israeli soldiers killing civilians and watching porn. The former occurs in the fog of war – unless you’re saying that 18,19-year old Israeli soldiers are superhuman and will never mistake civilians for terrorists or fire at an unknown vehicle out of fear, this seems to me to be a realistic depiction of the fear and confusion that occurs in war, no matter how righteous and necessary that war may be. The same is with the latter – are Israeli soldiers so pure and holy that not a single one would consider jerking off to German porn? Really?
Rosenthal’s critique is the flip side to the sanctimonious double standards against Israel issued out by the left. For them, Israel is not allowed to be a flawed entity, just like all other nations on earth; whatever mistakes Israel makes are magnified to be the greatest crimes in human history. For them, Israel is either perfect, which no nation can be, or it has “lost” the right to exist. Apparently for Rosenthal, depicting Israel with these flaws that make it a normal nation (though certainly better than most in the world)is also a sin.
I don’t consider myself a leftist or a dove, but films are films. Are we going to pretend that Israeli soldiers don’t watch porn or take pot shots at animals? Does the legitimacy of the IDF hang in the balance? Not to me it doesn’t.
When a nation is mature enough to appreciate realism in its cinema, that’s a good sign. Should the US stick to John Wayne war movies only?
Generally speaking, I appreciate Mr. Rosenthal’s columns about Europe. But in this case, Ms. Goldman’s comments ring truer to me.
Of all the critical posts of Goldman, the only one with veracity is JJ Sefton’s. Indeed, as a nation whose reputation and very “right to exist” are seemingly always on trial, Israel does have to worry about its reputation in a way that other nations don’t. But this is a good, compelling film, and should be appreciated as such.
I have an old friend who was 18 when Israel’s War of Independence broke out. She had just enrolled in teaching school but wanted to help her country by joining the military. “Stay in school,” they told her. “The nation will need teachers.” That sort of big picture thinking is what’s needed here. Israel is far beyond the stage of requiring flat, two dimensional, censor-friendly, scripted war films.
Meanwhile, when are we going to see a film about the genocide in Darfur? Or Islamic terrorism in the Philippines? Or the modern day persecution of Jews and Christians around the world? (And it’s gotta be set in our era; no fair putting it in WWII, or ancient Rome!)
TO: P Ami
RE: Responses
“Micha made a great point regarding your need to comment on things you know nothing about and your response is to get serially and obsessively pedantic?” — P Ami
That’s an ‘interrogative’?
Maybe you should take some more classes in English before communicating further. I’d recommend focusing on punctuation.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. So…..
…what ethnicity are you anyway? And does that influence your commentary here?
Chuck,
What happened, did you pick up a book on grammar terms the other day, liked what you read, and decided to subject the world wide web to your newest distraction?
I can’t count the number of times I’ve read your comments in memo form, all chucked about this site, dripping with condescension and programmed talking points even as you admit to not having put much effort in an in depth study of that which you hold such strong opinions of.
Yes sir, the opening sentence of my last comment was an interrogative. You see, my first language happens to be English rather then French. While the French have differentiated forms for their written and spoken language we English speakers are allowed to write in the same form that we speak in. So, when I wrote, “Micha made a great point regarding your need to comment on things you know nothing about and your response is to get serially and obsessively pedantic?”, I constructed a sentence meant to convey incredulity. As another example, “You know nothing about the a subject and you’re still willing to opine so strongly”?
Oh, and before you decide to correct my use of conjunctions to begin a sentence, I suggest you bite into the meat of people’s criticism of your views rather then distract yourself from the shallowness of your thoughts with the sound of your grinding on gristle. Your grammar lessons are ad hominum distractions.
Oh yeah,
“…what ethnicity are you anyway? And does that influence your commentary here?”
What the hell kind of stupid question is that? It was pretty clear from my first comment that my grandparents are concentration camp survivors and I am the second generation of my family to serve in the IDF. What freakin ethnicity does that sound like to you? I would imagine that my commentary here would be different if I was a Hindu or Turk so I would say that yes, ethnicity influences my commentary.
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2009/02/waltz_with_bash.html – not the only blogger to be rfoaming at the mouth about this movie.