Yariv Mozer, the director of We Will Dance Again, a documentary film about the Nova festival, said that he had to agree with the BBC to not describe Hamas as a terrorist organization if he wanted it to air, according to an interview with The Hollywood Reporter on Tuesday.
The film, which is set to broadcast on the BBC on Thursday, contains unseen footage of the Hamas massacre at the festival on October 7. It was commissioned by BBC Storyville.
Mozer told The Hollywood Reporter that this was a concession he had to make if he wanted the film to be seen by the British public.
There's the actual reason if anyone is interested.
Personally, if the documentary focuses on what Hamas did on that one day without addressing the actual reasons and events that led up to it as well as everything that happened afterwards than I would say it's pretty biased. And I don't mean biased in a pro-Hamas way.
- There's the actual reason if anyone is interested.
  That merely repeats the headline, it isn't a reason.
- without addressing the actual reasons and events that led up to it
  Then it would need to include Palestinians starting war against Israel then losing a disproportionate number of citizens then always repeating the failed attacks expecting a different result? There is a word for that.
  Most of the Jewish population of Israel are those fleeing persecution from Muslim nations (not from Europe as is commonly believed).
  "By 2019, the total number of Jews in Arab countries and Iran had declined to 12,700, and in Turkey to 14,800"
  The only persecution of Gazans in the few years leading up to Oct 7 was the border checks since they have imported munitions in the past which they attacked Israel with.
  How far back in history do you want to go in a 90 minute documentary about the Nova massacre? It doesn't actually matter now regardless of what each side says: Jews ain't going anywhere and neither are the Arabs. A two-state solution is the only option.
  
  Then it would need to include Palestinians starting war against Israel then losing a disproportionate number of citizens then always repeating the failed attacks expecting a different result? There is a word for that.
  There already was a war. Death by a thousand tiny cuts is still a conflict. Just because the world didn't talk about it doesn't mean it didn't exist. Palestine was already called the "largest open air prison" before the war started. A documentary that doesn't at least touch on the treatment of Palestinians by Israel is like releasing a documentary about what the Black Lives Matter protests did to the cops in America and their image without explaining the history of blatant abuse they perpetrated on the African Americans.
  The only persecution of Gazans in the few years leading up to Oct 7 was the border checks since they have imported munitions in the past which they attacked Israel with.
  That is an outright lie.
  Just a little excerpt:
  The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention.
  How far back in history do you want to go in a 90 minute documentary about the Nova massacre?
  The length of the documentary is not an excuse. If the director wants to make a documentary on what happened that day then that's fine. But explaining the events as if they happened in a vacuum is not good journalism.
  
  I'm not sure proffering apologetics for war crimes is appropriate for Beehaw. Especially not when you clearly label Hamas as a terrorist organization and specifically not a legitimate steward of the civilian population's will.
  
  You're presenting this all as people fleeing but even your wiki link presents a bunch of "pull" factors, making some of your text blue doesn't automatically mean you're providing good evidence for your arguments.
What's the plan op? Do you really think you're gonna diversify opinion or change minds by being this combative in a thread you started, and had to have known was a spicy topic to begin with?
There are meaningful discussions to be had on the general topic but I don't think your approach was very effective
this thread is a disaster from front to back, so it's being locked.

24 comments