Gregory wrote:Regarding the BFI edition, I did purchase it and am very pleased with it. My main reason for getting it was to see the long Chomsky v. Dershowitz debate. It was as interesting as I'd expected, and likewise as frustrating. Dershowitz makes a few good points but also trots out many of the same old canards about Chomsky's positions on Israel/Palestine that have already been refuted numerous times in print and, even worse, lowers the professional and intellectual standards of the debate with his irritating "Planet Chomsky" ripostes.
Having finally got my set through various channels (for some reason when I ordered this through MovieMail I got a copy of the VHS(!) of the film! Perhaps they were trying to get rid of stockpiles?), I wanted to chime in on the subject of these debates, even though I'm barely qualified to do so!
Firstly though I thought it was interesting to see the start of the Buckley/Chomsky debate which I had seen most of on the Zeitgeist DVD. On the Zeitgeist disc the debate starts rather abruptly and that seems to be explained on the BFI by the picture flaws during Buckley's introductory speech. Perhaps that was felt to be unacceptable by the other disc's producers? However it was interesting to get to see that relatively short opening sequence before the quality improved during the debate itself.
Also while it was great to see the film itself fully subtitled, it was a shame that some of the debates could not have been, even if their verbose nature would have probably made that budgetarily impossible! Beyond just helping the hard of hearing I think it might also have helped a viewer such as myself to quickly be able to look up terms or names of authors and their works are being used that I was unfamiliar with and would want to follow up. But its a minor complaint I guess (And I love the pdf of the book, especially the little Chomsky action figure cartoon at the very end! I want one of those dolls for myself!)
I was impressed that the film itself looks far better than on my old Zeitgeist disc - I didn't think the various pieces of footage could look so sharp! I'll probably still keep my old disc though since it contains the long version of the Dutch debate with Foucault. I did kind of miss the balance that this more respectful debate provided, despite both sides disagreeing on some fundamental points. On the BFI disc we mainly had the debates that became extremely heated and while their addition was appreciated I felt the need for a cooler companion debate to have been included as well.
On to the Dershowitz. I agree with Gregory's comments on the debate, but it was relatively more balanced than the opening paen to Shimon Peres might have suggested! It was also interesting following my recent return trip through Adam Curtis to note that the RAND Corporation was briefly brought up as a company looking to build links between the West Bank and Gaza - something that led me to think that this is another 'building projects for the boys' type of situation. The thing that I kept thinking during the debate when Israeli peace terms were put forward was that I kept wanting to add the caveat "on our own terms" to the end of each sentence. I don't think the West has got to the stage of considering these things from the other point of view yet, and still considers itself an impartial and neutral observer of these events. Even acknowledging the one-sided nature would perhaps be a step forward on this. That's where Chomsky seemed to make a little headway in suggesting to approach proceedings not from a 'Palestinian' or 'Israeli' side but from an 'American' side, since that is an area in which the American public can and should have influence on the debate of how their government should approach the Israel question.
I found the continued talk of moving into "the future rather than the past" strange, which reminded me a lot of the way that the Iraq War was now done and we should forget about it having been an illegal one and move on. Is it an attempt to downplay the importance of history because that might raise uncomfortable questions? (Sort of a Waltz With Bashir-styled absolution and lack of culpability for actions through collective amnesia?) Whose future are we envisioning and whose past are we forgetting - and who decides that we should move on from consideration of the issues as if they have been covered already?
As someone who still thinks the best chance of peace might have been achieved with Yitzhak Rabin until he was assassinated I was left relatively cold by talk of peaceful solutions, which all seem to involve pleasant language while carrying blithely on as before (e.g. the Wall and continued settlements). Unfortunately the debate seems rather dated now, with its talk of "upcoming elections". Of course for all the questioning of Chomsky of whether he would support the Palestinians if they agreed to terms unacceptable to him personally, there did not seem to be any discussion of what might happen if the Palestinians actually elected Hamas as their representatives instead!
From viewing the excellent last interview discussion with Edward Said who went into a lot of detail about the divisions within the Palestinian side itself, events would have seemed to have been leading towards a situation such as this, where you have one party in Fatah which is more moderate and supported by the West, but at the same time another which is given the democratic support and legitimacy of the people themselves. Perhaps the greatest test, and the one which the West failed, was in supporting democracy even when it makes a choice that you fundamentally disagree with. By not working with Hamas they have not just disenfranchised the peace process by showing how little the opinions of the electorate matter, but have added an extra layer of bureaucracy to the proceedings, as now there is an extra Israeli-backed Palestinian government to please as well.
