To whom do we answer? To what authority? To the institutions of the democratic state or to a higher authority?

Recently, there has been much discussed both in the press and on TV about hard-core settlers at illegal outposts on the West Bank. The discussions have arisen out of two recent incidents – the attempted assassination of a left-wing professor, and the clashes between settlers and the army, with the settlers slashing tires of army vehicles, attacking Palestinians and preventing the army from protecting Palestinian property.

Even though the necessity of a two-state solution seems to have entered our public consciousness, it seems relatively certain that an attempt at evacuating and dismantling settlements would rip our country apart. Supporters of the settlers give "security" and "the sacred land of the Bible" as two reasons for not giving up territory on the West Bank. On the other hand, supporters of the two-state solution seem painfully aware of the tragedy of the occupation and the ongoing price that we pay unless we reach a peace agreement with our neighbors.

Just a few years ago, the Israeli police and army successfully evacuated the settlements of Gush Katif, in what was called "the disengagement". A human and emotional look at the turmoil of the disengagement can be seen in the documentary film, Storm of Emotions סערת רגשות ,directed by Yael Klopmann (83 min., 2007). The film includes a fascinating section on the simulation training and role-playing that the police and army underwent in preparation for the disengagement. Their readiness was thorough.

One police officer talks about having thought about hiding his kipah during the evacuation, because of the conflict it would cause with the religious settlers. Then he decides to wear it proudly. Another police officer sits on the beach and talks to his sons about the importance of following orders.

The dangers are enormous in a democratic state in which the citizens answer to a "higher" authority, as represented by their rabbis – we saw this with the assassination of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, when a yeshiva student claimed that his rabbi's injunction against evacuating settlements justified his killing the prime minister. We see this in Joseph Cedar's film, Time of Favor, in which two young men are carried away in what they think is a legally justified interpretation of their charismatic rabbi's teachings.

One of the fundamental principles of living in a democratic society is respect for the rule of law, otherwise democracy can quickly turn into anarchy. When the army and the police are given a complex mission, and they are permitted to do their jobs right, with humanity and caring, then the outcome can be favorable for the vast majority of the country – as we saw during the period of the disengagement.

Storm of Emotions is available from Ruth Diskin, ruth@ruthfilms.com

Fading Chauvanism

Two major Israeli feature films from recent years which seemingly have little in common thematically – Time of Favor and Walk on Water – actually both have a great deal in common. They both deal with gender issues and how they affect our perspective on war and peace.

The highly acclaimed Walk on Water (2003) ללכת על המים was a tour de force for director Eitan Fox and for his life partner and scriptwriter, Gal Uchovsky. Over the decades there have been many Israeli films which deal with the ongoing struggle of Israeli citizens to live in the shadow of war, and in recent years, this theme has commanded the attention of Israeli filmmakers once again. This film is mainly about the emotional damage or baggage that Israeli men carry as a result of living in a society at war. For example, Israeli men find it difficult breaking through their hard shells and dealing with their emotions. Alex (Knut Berger), visiting from abroad, asks the film’s hero: “Is it true that Israeli men have trouble expressing their emotions?” Our hero responds jokingly, “I don’t know, I don’t like to talk about it.” Already, the viewer realizes that Israeli men are not the perfect hunk, as we like to think! On top of this the film adds a number of additional themes – understanding homosexuality more personally and more openly; and our obsession with Holocaust memory and with hunting Nazi murderers.

The film tells the story of a Mossad agent, a trained killer, named Eyal (Lior Ashkenazi), whose assignment is to befriend a German tourist, Alex, in the hopes of finding and assassinating his aging Nazi grandfather. The complex script brings Eyal to Berlin where he is shocked to find himself in a fistfight protecting a group of cross-dressers, causing him to suddenly sees things from a different perspective altogether. Later on, still in Berlin, Eyal is invited by Alex (who really likes Israeli dancing) to his home for a family get-together. Alex gathers all of his stuffy, upper crust relatives and family friends into a circle, and teaches them a dance! Both the proper Germans and Eyal, their hardened Israeli guest, obviously have a lot to learn from Alex's open-minded, flexible and multi-cultural perspective. It takes quite a leap of faith to open up, see things differently and "walk on water"!

The film has an explicit message – it is time to learn to express what we are feeling so that we can end the cycle of hate and the cyle of killing. This is a new message, one that is overtaking the old macho message of earlier Israeli films which tended to portray the Israeli approach to war in black-and-white, simplistic and chauvinistic terms.

The Pioneering Ethic of Self-Sacrifice
In the classic, He Walked Through the Fields (הוא הלך בשדות (1967, the film’s hero (Assi Dayan) is a brash, unsentimental fellow. Although originally he is ambivalent about serving his country, eventually he is recruited to the cause. When he leads a dangerous mission, he tells his wife that their personal concerns must be secondary to his responsibilities in leading his men on a mission that can be fateful for them and for the direction of the war. In contrast, in today's post-modern times, we have begun to reclaim our personal lives, putting them back on the top of our list of priorities. We are no longer eager to sacrifice our lives and those of our family members for the greater good of the collective society. But can our choices really be so black and white? Living in Israel in this period, we must find a compromise path, one which will let us have both individualism and self-sacrifice; soldiers who can deal with their emotions and feelings, even when serving in defense in their country.

The Land of Israel is built on Self-Sacrifice
Nowadays, self-sacrifice is also demanded in the area of life on a settlement. In Joseph Cedar’s Time of Favor (ההסדר (2000, there is a mention of the Talmudic saying, “The land of Israel is built on self-sacrifice.” (This saying was considered motivational during the 1930's when the pioneers were working so hard to drain the swamps, build the roads, and defend themselves and their families. ) In this contemporary film, the young army officer, Menachem (Aki Avni), looks out at the landscape, and comments how beautiful it is – a direct reference to the majesty and awesomeness of the land of the Bible. It is the rabbi’s daughter (Tinkerbell) however, living on the settlement, who is able to look at the landscape and realize that people need more than "landscape" in their lives, that it is not enough to dedicate your life to the land of the Bible. There must be more to life than that. Not only is she is critical of the settler’s obsession with sacrificing for the land, she is also critical about how they “admire” each other so much, following the path set out for them, without questioning and considering things for themselves.

I once asked the filmmaker, Joseph Cedar, why he put the voice of criticism in the mouth of a young woman, after all, this is a film about modern orthodox young men learning at a yeshiva in the West Bank, serving together in the army in their own religious company. He told me: “In a militaristic and chauvinistic society like that of the settlers, the voice of criticism can only be from an outsider.” This young woman is not exactly an “outsider”, but her gender permitted her to have a different perspective than that of the all male club of yeshiva students and soldiers. Later in the film, we see her as a strong character, capable of taking matters into her own hands, and preventing an enormous tragedy as a result. Notwithstanding the fact that she has grown up within the settler movement, she is capable of thinking for herself and making her own decisions, even in contrast to what is expected of her.

"Beaufort" directed by Joseph Cedar (2007)

This past week I was invited to teach about issues of contemporary Israel through film at a festival called Jewstock in the Lake Balaton region outside of Budapest. The festival attracted hundreds of Jews in their mid-to-late 20's who were attracted mostly by the night-time live musical events. In addition, the daytime program included workshops, discussions and film screenings.

It seemed quite surreal to screen Beaufort for this group. Here we were in a pastoral setting, enjoying the outdoors, the music, the beer, while watching a film about the end of the first war in Lebanon!

Based on the bestseller, If there is a Heaven by Ron Leshem (English title: Beaufort), the film is a very authentic and powerful statement about the absurdity and futility of war. It is a film critical of war, of the military establishment, and of the political decision-making process.

Beaufort is a Crusader castle in southern Lebanon, which was conquered by Israeli forces for strategic purposes in 1982 at the beginning of the Lebanon War and was held until Israeli forces withdrew unilaterally from Lebanon in 1999. The film is about the daily routine of the soldiers during that period in 1999, just before the withdrawal from the Beaufort mountaintop.

It is a film about palpable and terrifying fear, about male bonding and friendship, and, different from other war films, it permits the soldiers to voice their emotions and worries, to talk about their families, and to share their inner-most thoughts. There are no stereotypes at Beaufort.

Explosive Book-endsThe film is "framed" by two soldiers who work with explosives. At the beginning of the film, Ziv (Ohad Knoller) is sent to the hilltop as a sapper, to disable a roadside bomb. In a friendly give-and-take with the other soldiers, one asks him, "how did you become a sapper, did you choose it?" He responds, "how did you get to Beaufort, did you choose it?" Immediately the viewer is shocked into understanding that we did not actually "choose" to conquer and hold Beaufort for 18 years – rather, the Israeli military got stuck in the mud of Lebanon and didn't quite know how to get out of it! In a very tense scene, the soldiers set out on the mission to disable the bomb and the sapper dog is sent ahead to check it out. Then Ziv approaches, and quickly becomes the first casualty of the film.

The explosives expert at the end of the film is sent to blow up the military stronghold at Beaufort at the time of the pullout. The fact that the first is killed by the roadside bomb -- the symbol of the loss of Israeli soldiers by guerilla warfare in Lebanon -- and the second succeeds in his mission of retreating, is indicative of the whole experience in southern Lebanon.

The FilmmakerSimilar to Beaufort, Joseph Cedar's first feature film, Time of Favor (2001) also featured a young army officer, grappling with issues of leadership, responsibility, and taking initiative in a situation which gets out of hand. These films – Time of Favor and Beaufort – are part of a trend in Israeli filmmaking of the last 10-15 years that portray issues of the army in an authentic and critical style.

Winning an award for best director at the 2007 Berlin Film Festival, Joseph Cedar commented: "What intrigued me most in the story of Beaufort is that it deals with how wars end. There is an abrupt, definitive moment in every war when the mission, or purpose, for which soldiers gave their lives until that moment, ceases to exist. With Beaufort this moment comes with a great horrific explosion, destroying one of the bloodiest mountains in the Middle East - an unforgettable, adrenaline-saturated moment, but also an image that crystallizes the inconceivable waste of human life. As a filmmaker, and as a former infantry soldier, I feel extremely grateful to have had the opportunity to put this image on screen." (http://www.bavaria-film-international.de/htmls/bfi/index.php?site=program&id=224 ).