Should We Be Surprised?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=4727121

Palestinians Passionate About Gibson Film
Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:02 AM ET

By Nidal al-Mughrabi
GAZA (Reuters) - Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of the Christ" is all the rage among Palestinians, curious about complaints by Jews that it is anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, local distributors in Israel are shunning the film, which Jewish groups say demonizes Jews by depicting them as pressuring the Romans into crucifying Jesus. "The Passion" has banked more than $315 million since its release in February.

Only one percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip are Christians while the other 99 percent are Muslims, who revere Jesus as a prophet but do not believe he was crucified.

The portrayal of a prophet in a film is forbidden under Islam. But many Palestinians, locked in conflict against Israel, say they hope "The Passion" will rouse angry emotions against Jews by Christian audiences around the world.

"People are calling me from everywhere in the West Bank -- from Bethlehem, Hebron, Ramallah and Nablus -- to ask for copies of the movie," said the owner of a Gaza city video shop, which sells pirated copies of new release movies.

The shop owner, who declined to be identified, said he received a flood of telephone calls after placing an advertisement for the film in a leading Palestinian newspaper.

"The Passion of the Christ" had outsold other Hollywood blockbusters in Gaza and the West Bank's pirated video market, including "Matrix Revolutions" and "The Last Samurai."

In Israel, the local agent for the film's international distributor Icon Entertainment said it passed on its option to show "The Passion of the Christ," but declined to specify its reasons other than to say the movie was "sensitive." Industry insiders in Israel say local distributors are not interested in the film because of allegations it is anti-Semitic and concerns they are unlikely to recoup their investment as films about Jesus draw few movie-goers in the Jewish state.

Jewish groups and some Roman Catholic clerics have expressed concern the film by Gibson could foment anti-Jewish attacks.

Gibson has denied the movie is anti-Semitic. He is a traditionalist Catholic who rejects the Vatican's 1965 renunciation of the notion that the Jews were collectively responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus. In Gaza, some Palestinians exposed to daily bloodshed since a Palestinian uprising began in September 2000 complained that the film's graphic depiction of the crucifixion was too gruesome for their tastes. "It looked like more of a horror movie than a historical one," said one viewer, Mohammed Rezik Ahmed. Others thought it was not gory enough. "We believe Jesus suffered more in his life from the Jews than what we saw in the movie," said Hanna Anton.

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat watched a preview of the film at his West Bank headquarters earlier this month. Aides said he found the film "moving."

But not all Palestinians were passionate about the film.

"It was nothing special but was simply something that will increase hatred against the Jews," said Ala, a librarian.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other news....

Israel is making up stories about child suicide bombers.

NABLUS, March 29 (IslamOnline.net) - Israeli media has embarked on a new stage of distorting the Palestinian resistance image, accusing Palestinian resistance fighters of making use of children and minors to execute bombing operations; a matter categorically denied by Palestinian families and factions as being "an Israeli intelligence fabrication."

http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2...article08.shtml

:lol:

I certainly don't wonder why Palestinians would fixate on The Passion...; though, as one who has seen it, I would aver that none of the factions represented in the film acquit themselves in any admirable way.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@3 April 2004 - 22:03
I certainly don't wonder why Palestinians would fixate on The Passion...; though, as one who has seen it, I would aver that none of the factions represented in the film acquit themselves in any admirable way.

---

As you know I have not seen this movie. However it has always been my understanding that the Jewish leaders at the time of Jesus did in fact want rid of Him. Was He not seen as a threat to the Jewish state and more importantly their leadership.

I think the fact that they wanted rid of him was more of a political than religious issue. Again, as I understand it Pilate offered the Jewish people the release of one person, either Jesus or Barabus, they chose Barabus.

If these are the beliefs of Catholicism, it is hardly surprising that Mel Gibson included them in his version of the Passion. I personally do not see this as being anti-semitic, they were fulfilling scripture.

Like I said, I have not seen the movie and there may be other issues. However my understanding of the part of the Jewish people in the Passion of Christ does not cause one iota of anti-Semitic feeling in me. I strongly suspect that Mr Gibson feels the same way. It is other people who are seeing his vision thro' their own eyes and interpreting what they thought he was saying.

It would make as much sense to say that The Guns of Navarone was anti-German.

J2

I suspect it is the reaction of the Jewish critics of the film that have endeared it to the Palestinians. "Mine enemy's enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@3 April 2004 - 16:36
J2

I suspect it is the reaction of the Jewish critics of the film that have endeared it to the Palestinians. "Mine enemy's enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

---

Exactly so, Biggles.

J'Pol-

In the movie, there are indeed political overtones to the intent of the group led by Caiaphas, to the exclusion of religious objection (although somewhat faux religious argument is bandied about to justify their aim to the onlooking hoi polloi).

This circumstance (in my eyes) lends rather heavily to the sense of fate which imbues the entire event.

It is a sense that the Lord's will be satisfied, which momentum cannot be stopped; one also has the idea that the players are somehow aware of the greater implication, yet are helpless to retreat once events have been set in motion.

You can see the guilt in their eyes.

EDIT: misspelled "Caiaphas"

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@3 April 2004 - 22:36
J2

I suspect it is the reaction of the Jewish critics of the film that have endeared it to the Palestinians. "Mine enemy's enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

---

I don't understand. I've been told all along that the Palestinian/Arab war has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with land.

:unsure:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@3 April 2004 - 22:36
J2

I suspect it is the reaction of the Jewish critics of the film that have endeared it to the Palestinians. "Mine enemy's enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

---

Exactly ;)

The Jews brought it upon themselves by saying "it's anti-semitic" and will make christians hate jews bla bla.... If they only knew that it's not what the film portrays but it's fulfilling scriptures and spreading the Gospel. Because the Jews tried to make the film look like it was made against them, they have given the muslims the upper hand and the satisfaction of starting a holy war across the world and not just in the middle east.

You will reap what you saw.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by putty+4 April 2004 - 03:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (putty &#064; 4 April 2004 - 03:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@3 April 2004 - 22:36
J2

I suspect it is the reaction of the Jewish critics of the film that have endeared it to the Palestinians. "Mine enemy&#39;s enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

---

I don&#39;t understand. I&#39;ve been told all along that the Palestinian/Arab war has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with land.

:unsure: [/b][/quote]
Indeed.

WW1 was about the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. By 1917, in the trenches of Flanders, the soldiers would have said "Arch who"?

The impasse in the conflict is such that anything that gives dismay to one side will be cause for rejoicing on the other. As Muslims, they will not be watching the film as some form of devotional aid, they are simply doing it because they know it teases ( :) to pinch from Lewis Carrol).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles+4 April 2004 - 05:19--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Biggles @ 4 April 2004 - 05:19)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by putty@4 April 2004 - 03:35
<!--QuoteBegin-Biggles

---

Quote:

---

@3 April 2004 - 22:36
J2

I suspect it is the reaction of the Jewish critics of the film that have endeared it to the Palestinians. "Mine enemy&#39;s enemy is my friend" sort of thing.

---

I don&#39;t understand. I&#39;ve been told all along that the Palestinian/Arab war has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with land.

:unsure:

---

Indeed.

WW1 was about the assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand. By 1917, in the trenches of Flanders, the soldiers would have said "Arch who"?

The impasse in the conflict is such that anything that gives dismay to one side will be cause for rejoicing on the other. As Muslims, they will not be watching the film as some form of devotional aid, they are simply doing it because they know it teases ( :) to pinch from Lewis Carrol). [/b][/quote]
Once again, Biggles-

Right on the money; neither side is particularly discriminating when come opportunities to propagandize.

BTW-a bit OT:

The onset of WWI has long been attributed to the assassination of the Archduke of Hapsburg, but actually, it was the German Kaiser who prodded the Hapsburg Empire into declaring war; he was aware extant alliances would bring Russia into the fray, giving Germany all the excuse it needed to also attack (as an ally of the Hapsburgers) and gain recognition for Germany as a great military power.

His vanity was the catalyzing agent to Ferdinand&#39;s bad luck.

Agreed

Although the Austrians were spoiling to attack the Serbs too. They caught Kaiser Bill out with their enthusiasm, he was on holiday on his boat at the time and had to cut short his vacation - much to his annoyance.

I have always felt sorry for Ferdinand. He was ok as Dukes go and was disliked by the Austrian Emperor for marrying a commoner. He really did want to win over the Serbs. A man caught between the ice bergs of history.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@4 April 2004 - 14:51
Agreed

Although the Austrians were spoiling to attack the Serbs too. They caught Kaiser Bill out with their enthusiasm, he was on holiday on his boat at the time and had to cut short his vacation - much to his annoyance.

I have always felt sorry for Ferdinand. He was ok as Dukes go and was disliked by the Austrian Emperor for marrying a commoner. He really did want to win over the Serbs. A man caught between the ice bergs of history.

---

:lol: :lol:

Well put&#33;

:lol: :D :P :)

I attended a seminar (non-religious, historical/practical) on that movie recently, and it posed a very good question:

Why does "the crowd" that is pro-Jesus in the first part switch over to demanding Barabus instead? What explanation could there be for such a change in public sentiment?

(Several factors were offered for an answer, I&#39;m just curious what you people think.)

I will give you my factor.

The crowd that wanted Barabus were the ones that were against Jesus from the begining but were afraid to confront him or talk to him because they knew he is very hard and impossible to defeat in an argument. YEAH, go Jesus, you show em :lol: :lol:


The ones that were with Jesus all along were hiding and abandoned him because they were afraid. Not just the apostles. Everyone that witnessed his miracles abandoned him.

When the Anti-Christ comes, the power of darkness will overshadow everything and will force people to go into hiding, history repeats it&#39;s self, or join the evil one because the hardships he will enforce on the world will be without any mercy as it&#39;s his last chance ever to get as many souls as possible.

Everything Jesus has done in his public life, the Catholic Church has followed him in all his steps and one of them will be the Crucifixion. All Christians will be crucified through out the whole world for denying the Anti-Christ and accepting Jesus Christ.



Please share with us your factor Phyltre. I would love to hear it.

Oh yeah, I got some of that Anti-Christ stuff there --&#62;http://catholicforum.tk

The main idea that the symposium seemed to put forth was that the second crowd was, in fact, not really a crowd at all. Because the Roman authorities had actually almost resolved NOT to attempt to apprehend Christ due to the public opinion in his favor (seizure might cause a revolt,) the second crowd was very much suspect.

Analysis of the scene where the crowd negotiates for Barabus instead of Jesus offers certain interesting clues. We know, for instance, that Pilate was an exceptionally ruthless leader; he was reprimanded by his superiors (who were very brutal as well, that should tell you something) for improperly handling--you guessed it--crowd situations, and generally killing hundreds of people at once to maintain control. More on this in a moment.

Also, we know that Barabus was not a thief as usually interpretted but a "freedom fighter," with anti-government followers. Therefore, trying to have him freed would have been an indirect insult to Pilate--for in truth, if not in name, Barabus was Pilate&#39;s enemy as a governor. They would have had a very practical reason for being present and pushing for Barabus&#39;s release. The second crowd is believed to be Barabus&#39;s most devout followers, very much anti-government type people.


Looking at both of these interesting points together, one can draw several conclusions. One, that the crowd in the first and second part are, obviously, not formed of the same types of people, which is why the public opinion seems to turn around so swiftly. Two, that an actual crowd of say, dozens or hundreds of people DEMANDING a release of a particular person in any manner would have most likely been killed out of hand by Pilate. So we see that our numbers here have dropped from 50-1000 to maybe 12--and that&#39;s a very polite crowd, indeed.

And third, that the more peaceful followers of Christ wouldn&#39;t have been present here, because if they were all killed by Pilate then there wouldn&#39;t be anyone to carry on the message, which was basically half of why Christ had come in the first place. It would have been like traveling to a country that had been receiving threats of being nuked: illogical and probably fatal.

The people that WERE there, therefore, were anti-government hoodlums, basically, who didn&#39;y much care if they were killed so long as they acted defiantly.
They were there to stage the recovery of Barabus in a successful manner--which they did.

My understanding was that Barabus was a zealot. In this respect he represented both rebellion to the Roman Empire and the Jewish religious cause.

Many had thought Jesus would be the Messiah to throw off the Roman shackles - Barabus at that point looked a better bet.

It was the zealots that 35 or so years later brought the whole might of the Roman Empire down on the Jews and resulted in the destruction of the Jewish state. The Jews were taken as slaves into the Roman Empire (the ones that survived obviously) and their descendants settled in whichever part of the Empire they ended up in.

Personally I can&#39;t argue the point; the speaker at the symposium just said he was a freedom fighter, based on the translation of the original terms used to refer to him. I&#39;m sure as to the ultimate accuracy there as personally I no knowledge of these dead languages.