A few weeks after the Academy Awards, Best Actor nominee and likely winner Colin Firth is scheduled to take up his next role, playing a British officer in a film about the struggle between British authorities in colonial Palestine and the Jewish underground that aimed to dislodge them.

While The King’s Speech brought history to life, Firth’s new movie, The Promised Land, may portray a distorted version of the conflict between Jews and Arabs, as well as the British role in it.

Directed by Michael Winterbottom, (Wonderland, The Road to Guantánamo), and partly backed by British taxpayers via the UK Film Council, The Promised Land presents a revisionist history of Palestine during World War II–one in which the British favor the Jews over the Arabs, the Jews repay British kindness with cruelty, and Arab violence against civilians and support for the Third Reich are airbrushed out of the picture.

The story centers around the real-life romance between two unlikely lovers, Shoshana Borochov and Thomas Wilkin. Borochov was the daughter of Dov Ber Borochov, a left-wing Zionist who saw the creation of Israel as part of the proletarian struggle. Wilkin was a British police officer responsible for tracking down members of the Jewish underground, particularly the infamous “Stern Gang.”

Before he was murdered during his arrest in 1942, Avraham “Yair” Stern had led a sensational and violent campaign to oppose British rule. His organization, “Fighters for the Freedom of Israel” (Lehi, in the Hebrew acronym) broke away from other Zionist groups and targeted British officials and police. He was regarded as an outlaw by many Jewish leaders, including the leaders of other Zionist underground organizations in Palestine.

At the time, the Holocaust was accelerating in Europe, while the British refused to allow the tide of Jewish refugees into Palestine. Though Palestine’s Arab leaders had revolted against British rule in the late 1930s, and soon took an active role in Hitler’s war effort, the British–after crushing the Arab rebellion–attempted (in vain) to appease Arab opinion with the White Paper of 1939, which severely restricted Jewish immigration.

The Promised Land ignores much of that context. Instead, it portrays the Jewish underground as a fascist, even pro-Nazi movement. The screenplay–a draft of which I have read–calls for graphic scenes of Arab suffering at the hands of Jewish terrorists and British officers. Jewish victims are largely off-screen, mentioned in the abstract–if at all. The film even suggests, falsely, that Jews provoked Arabs to commit the Hebron massacre of 1929 by not hiring Arab workers, absolving Palestinian Arab leaders who incited the pogrom.

Michael Winterbottom

Though the screenplay makes some effort to show that Stern was not widely supported by Jewish leaders, it often uses his group as a symbol of the Jewish underground as a whole. Similarly, the screenplay draws facile connections between Stern and the Likud governments of Israel in the 1970s and 1980s, ignoring decades of intervening history. It also presents the Arab population as unique victims; they are the only concentration camp inmates portrayed in the story, for example.

The screenplay for The Promised Land was written by Laurence Coriat, who may bring an anti-Israel bias to the project. In 2006, she apparently co-signed an open letter accusing Israel of “violation of all international conventions” and “destruction of all the infrastructures…and the institutions of the Republic of Lebanon.” (No word from Coriat then, or now, about Hezbollah, it would seem.)

There are several glaring mistakes–errors of omission as well as commission, such as the familiar (yet false) claim that Jews were a minority in Jerusalem in the early 20th century. Early online chatter about The Promised Land reported that Winterbottom briefly consulted the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in researching the period. If so, he seems to have used its resources selectively, using key details to garnish a historical narrative that remains deeply flawed.

That is certainly how Israeli actress Mili Avital felt upon reading the screenplay. As she related to an Israeli newspaper last year, she had been approached to participate in the film, but refused after reading the screenplay: “…it was so anti-Zionist that I closed it after 20 pages. I read it and there were tears in my eyes…it pains me to read how [Winterbottom] describes the beginning of Zionism from such an extreme point of view.”

At the moment, The Promised Land seems to have run into funding problems, according to co-star Jim Sturgess, who signed on to play Wilkin (according to IMDB, Firth is cast as officer Robert Chambers, who narrates much of the film’s flawed historical background–not Stern, as originally reported by the San Francisco Sentinel). Production was apparently supposed to have begun last summer–and Firth might have good cause to be grateful that it didn’t, because the film could have overshadowed his outstanding performance in The King’s Speech.

It is not impossible to salvage The Promised Land. A rewritten screenplay–if it has not been rewritten already–could preserve the story and its characters, while correcting the factual errors and bias of the film. The question is whether the director and producers care more about the improbable romance between Wilkins and Borochov, or the false historical argument Winterbottom and Coriat seem to be making: that terror was, and remains, at the core of Zionism and Israel.

If the latter, The Promised Land risks becoming agitprop instead of art. That may be what Winterbottom and the producers at Revolution Films intend: after all, they made The Shock Doctrine in 2009, based on the book by Israel boycott enthusiast Naomi Klein. But fans of Colin Firth–myself among them–should hope that he is able to convince his colleagues to revisit their screenplay, to make a film that is worth of his talent and integrity, and true to the facts.

Especially our home-grown fanatics on the left who view conservatives the same way Muslim extremists view Jews. Witness the silly brouhaha in the Daily News recently. Mallard Filmore, a mildly conservative strip did this cartoon to howls of indignation and rage from our very own fascists, those humorless drones known as left-wing activists.

The cartoon had the temerity to mock hate crimes by in turn mocking liberals’ laughable rationalizations for their own hypocrisy and bigotry. Yes, children, lefties are hypocrites too. But do not dare call them out on it or you will get 20 or so people with nothing better to do than hold signs in front of your place of business like these dopes.

Notice the signs are all nicely printed, even the ones they’re holding upside down. Shades of ACORN or SEIU! Or maybe it was the MoveOn or Code Pink crowd. The fact is, what they are really protesting is free speech. And the fact that they are basically trying to paint the cartoonist and the paper that runs him as some kind of racist hate mongers shows how little regard they have for both reality and the First Amendment.

Oh, sure…these aren’t congress-people trying to abridge the Daily News’ free speech. This is a bunch of bogus protesters sent by some pressure group to try to intimidate a paper into not veering from the approved script. Which is why we should show these people the scorn and derision they so deserve — and the horse they rode in on — being whichever hack group funded their per diems.

They’re all hot and bothered that the strip mentions hate crimes. Their argument is no one is allowed to make fun of the term. Well, let me be one to do it, as I love barbecuing sacred cows. “Hate crimes” is a bogus term. The very idea that some murder and assault is worse than other kinds is in itself an absurdity and a racist, sexist argument. To say that one group or another is more sanctified than another is bigoted. It’s saying it’s not as bad to kill one group (white males) but if you kill that group (fill in the blank) it’s extra-extra bad and should really, really get super-extreme-punishment with extra-pain nuggets on top.

Does it really matter why someone would want to kill you? I mean, seriously, if someone wants to kill you because of your race, are you going to feel worse when you die, than if they wanted to kill you because of your tastes in movies or music or your hairstyle?

Does it really feel worse getting beat up by someone who thinks you’re lame for going to see Twilight 90 times instead of because you’re a Buddhist?

This is the rationale of lefties who think Hitler is worse than Stalin because he killed people for their religion when Stalin killed 10 times more people than Hitler. Yet Stalin gets a pass because they approve of his politics, even though Hitler was also a socialist. These same people who think Hitler was more evil also hate Jews for killing Palestinian terrorists even though they’re doing it to defend themselves. The Palestinians who kill Jews get a pass because, well, they’re killing Jews. The logic is as insane as it gets, but that’s leftism for you. Sanity isn’t its strong suit.

The cartoon protesters are a fraud. America’s political debate has become a cartoon of its own. And it’s not very funny.

The one I applaud is the former Mrs. Sakharov.  In a speech delivered in Norway, she pointed out that the Palestinians are still being referred to as refugees even though only a tiny percentage of them have ever even set foot in Israel.  According to my dictionary, and I assume Ms. Bonner’s, a refugee is someone who has fled from violence and wars.  How on earth can the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of those who left Israel in order to avoid being killed or injured by the invading Arab forces in 1948, 61 long years ago, be regarded as refugees?

It reminds me of American blacks who, 45 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act, continue to benefit from various programs such as Affirmative Action and Operation Head Start.  Is there no such thing as a statute of limitations, no point at which commonsense kicks in and people are permitted to say, “Enough is enough,” without being branded a villain?

Ms. Bonner pointed out that while every do-gooder group in the world seems to be concerned about the comfort level of Islamic terrorists at Gitmo, armed combatants who aren’t even covered by the Geneva Conventions because they don’t wear uniforms, carry a flag or even fight for a specific nation, nobody outside of Israel seems the least bit concerned about Gilad Schalit, the Israeli soldier who was abducted three years ago by Hamas.  She’s right, of course.  Our politicians don’t care, the U.N. doesn’t care, and God knows all those left-wing ACLU lawyers who are lined up eager to defend Islamic terrorists, up to and including Osama bin Laden, should he ever be captured, sure don’t give a damn.

That brings me to Colin Powell.  For reasons I can’t begin to imagine, he has taken umbrage at Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh for suggesting he’s not a Republican.  Frankly, I’m shocked that he continues to insist he is one.  I, for one, began doubting it years ago, when, as Secretary of State, he publicly opposed George Bush over the invasion of Iraq.  When, in 2008, he timed his endorsement of Barack Obama to do the most damage to John McCain’s campaign, I naturally assumed Mr. Powell had finally gotten around to changing his registration.  After all, if you can’t support McCain, who was about as close to being a Democrat as a GOP candidate could be, what Republican could Mr. Powell get behind?  Abe Lincoln?

I keep asking myself why, after supporting the most left-wing presidential candidate since Henry Wallace, the man would insist on calling himself a Republican.  Frankly, I’m stumped, but, human nature being what it is, it must obviously work to his benefit.

Well, at my age, I need every possible edge I can get.  Therefore, I am now announcing that I’m a Democrat.  Understand, I am opposed to the bail-outs and to the monstrous debt Obama is running up.  I am opposed to the feds taking over car companies, banks and lending institutions, and determining executive salaries.  I am opposed to Barack Obama’s cavalier attitude towards Iran’s nuclear program; his kowtowing to Arab princes, ACORN and the UAW; his activities on behalf of Harry Reid’s re-election campaign; his endorsement of a paramilitary organization that appears to be patterned on earlier models created by Hitler and Mussolini; and to his search for a “compassionate” Supreme Court justice.  I am also opposed to his bringing Cuban-style health care to the U.S., and I am opposed to the mind-boggling inflation that his profligate spending will inevitably bring to bear on all taxpayers, not just those super rich Americans he kept targeting, Che Guevara fashion, during his campaign.

What’s more, I’m not too crazy about a guy who names the family dog after his own initials.  I am curious, though, considering that Bo was a gift from Ted Kennedy, whether he drinks from a bowl or a bottle.

Finally, at the risk of sounding boastful, I’d like to say that I’m the best kind of Democrat.  I’m the kind who votes for Republicans.

burtprelutsky@aol.com

I want that to be perfectly clear so that when I declare my concern for Israel, nobody will simply assume it’s because I’m Jewish.  I am on the side of Israel because it’s a western democracy, an ally of America, and because I regard her enemies to be our enemies, people dedicated to our mutual annihilation. 

Israel’s foes believe in targeting women and children just so long as they’re Jewish or Christian.  They are not only intolerant of the freedoms we take for granted — speech and religion — but they are polygamous, treat their women as chattel and encourage their children to achieve martyrdom as suicide bombers.  Moreover, so-called honor killings are part of what passes for their culture. 

In order to realize what a paternalistic society they have, you need only look at a photo of an Arab mob carting a corpse through the streets of Gaza; even when it’s the corpse of a child, I challenge you to find a woman anywhere in sight.  So far as the Arabs are concerned, the mother, grandmother, aunts and sisters, are of absolutely no consequence, unless, of course, they can be persuaded to strap several sticks of dynamite to themselves and pay a visit to an Israeli pizza parlor. 

Yet here in America and even more so in Europe, you will find millions of presumably civilized people, particularly in Hollywood and on our left-wing college campuses, who theoretically find a moral equivalence between Israel and her sworn enemies — while actually favoring the Islamics. 

In a recent Rasmussen Poll, 62% of Republicans in America sided with Israel, while a mere 31% of Democrats favored the Israelis in their life-and-death conflict. 

As you may have noticed, the world’s media rarely if ever remarked about the thousands of missiles Hamas fired into Israel over the past few years.  However, once Israel finally got around to announcing that enough was enough, and went on the offensive, Condoleezza Rice and the European Union didn’t waste a second before crying “Foul!” and throwing a penalty flag.  Going them one better, the present administration has earmarked nearly a billion dollars for Hamas, while they distract us over the $165 million in AIG bonuses. 

This same pattern is followed each and every time that Israel responds to unprovoked attacks.  You can invariably count on the nations of the world agreeing that Israel is out of line.  While it’s nice they can agree on something, it’s a shame that “something” never seems to be Islamic terrorism, Arab barbarism or slavery and black genocide in modern-day Africa.

Can you imagine anyone in his right mind 68 years ago claiming that America was over-reacting to Pearl Harbor?  Would anybody but an idiot have suggested that once America had sunk an equal number of Japanese battleships or killed an equal number of Japanese soldiers and sailors that we should have ceased hostilities and turned things over to European diplomats, especially after seeing how well those fellows had kept Hitler and Mussolini in check? 

The fact is, only Arabs would continue referring to the folks in Gaza as refugees.  The only reason that there were any Arab refugees back in 1948 was because Egypt, Jordan and Syria, promised to exterminate the Jews and divide the spoils, not because Israel had exiled its Arab population.  Once Israel fought off the invaders, no Arab nation would open its doors to the refugees, and to this day no Arab nation ever has. 

But that was 61 years ago!  Who ever heard of people being refugees for six decades?  How can people who have never lived in Israel, whose fathers and mothers never lived in Israel, continue to lay claim to a place where they’ve never set foot — and which, according to Arab textbooks, doesn’t even exist?  They might as well insist they have a claim to Oz, Atlantis or Brigadoon.  

For those who would claim that the Jews weren’t entitled to their own state, the truth is that most of the land that is now Israel was purchased from Arabs, at exorbitant prices, over several decades by Zionists who began settling there in the 19th century. 

Frankly, I marvel at Israel’s spiritual fortitude, at her reluctance to seek Biblical retribution.  Even one missile would be enough to get me riled up.  To absorb 10,000 missile attacks strikes me as verging on the masochistic.  I honestly think Israel continues to be far too concerned with world opinion.  After 61 years of hearing one’s enemies parroting Hitler’s plans for the final solution, collateral damage would be the least of my concerns.  

I understand that civilized societies are expected to worry about the deaths of women and children.  But in civilized societies, parents don’t raise their youngsters to be suicide bombers, they don’t elect their leaders from the ranks of a terrorist group and they certainly wouldn’t dance in the street when 3,000 innocent Americans were incinerated on 9/11.

But one culture has rejected a far-left film establishment that seeks to undermine its war on terror – the other has embraced it.    

The first culture – the culture that rejects its morally relativistic artists – is America.  The second culture – the culture that accepts and encourages its morally relativistic artists – is Israel. 

Hollywood may make tons of movies like In the Valley of Elah, Rendition, and Stop-Loss, but those movies tank.  Tel Aviv makes similar movies, and those movies are considered the greatest film achievements of the Jewish State. 

There’s a reason for that: while Hollywood believes American exceptionalism is passé, most Americans disagree.  By contrast, Tel Aviv believes that Zionism is passé – and that post-Zionist attitude has infected much of the Israeli populace. 

It’s no wonder that America is winning its war on terror, while Israel is losing hers. 

Let’s take just one example: Body of Lies vs. Waltz with Bashir. 

DiCaprio and Crowe star in "Body of Lies"

Body of Lies had all the elements of a hit.  Exciting action.  Solid direction by Ridley Scott.  Two first-rate stars in Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe.    

And it bombed.   

It bombed because watching Body of Lies was like watching an in-depth investigation by Al Jazeera.  The movie did its best to equate American counter-terrorism efforts with Islamic terrorism. 

Body of Lies opens with shots of Americans – led by CIA operative Leo DiCaprio — beating a terrorism suspect bloody.  Near the end of the movie, as Leo is being tortured by an Islamic terrorism, he flashes back to beating an Islamic terrorist.  The implication is clear: the US and its enemies aren’t so different, after all. 

That’s not a message Americans really want to hear.  We understand that our enemies are murderous thugs, and by and large, we also understand that we may need to hurt them in order to get information from them.   

It’s no wonder, then, that Body of Lies was more of a sinking ship than Titanic. 

It’s a different story in Israel. 

The hottest new movie in Israel is Waltz with Bashir.  The movie has already won Best Picture from the Israeli Film Academy, Best Picture from the National Society of Film Critics, Best Animated Film from the Los Angeles Film Critics, and Best Independent Foreign Film from the British Independent Film Awards. 

Waltz with Bashir is an animated post-Zionist journey into the mind of a former IDF soldier who fought in the 1982 Lebanon War.  It follows his investigation into what really happened during the Lebanon War, and it culminates in the Sabra and Shatilla massacres, in which the Israeli Defense Forces failed to prevent Christian Phalangists from killing 700-800 Palestinians in those refugee camps.  The Phalangist attack was a response to the Islamist killing of Lebanese President Bashir Gemayel.    

The film neglects to mention that only 35 out of the 700-800 killed were women and children – the rest were men, which suggests that most of those killed were in fact members of the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organization. 

In short, Waltz with Bashir is the Israeli version of Body of Lies, with less realistic action and more psychotherapy. 

In America, this sort of self-indulgent caterwauling is scorned by the mass public.  In Israel, everyone’s just pleased to be accepted by the Europeans for engaging in such self-abnegation. 

The film community in the United States may skew heavily to the left.  It may see its true mission as reshaping American foreign policy along European lines.  And it may make anti-war films with that mission in mind.  But the American public rejects the Hollywood view.  We want more Saving Private Ryan and less Redacted.  We want more We Were Soldiers and less Rendition. 

In Israel, the film community skews far left as well.  But Israel embraces those films.  Since 1948, Israeli film has been heavily focused on undermining Israelis’ patriotism – and Israelis have bought into it. 

Film has an impact.  It’s no wonder that so many Israelis are disillusioned with their state.  It’s no wonder that they’re apologetic for defending themselves.  It’s no wonder they keep trying to make amends for wrongs they haven’t committed.  It’s no wonder they love Waltz with Bashir.  

In America, it isn’t too late.  The American film industry may ignore its profit margin in favor of trendy pacifism, but such willful blindness can only last so long.  Eventually, Americans will demand to see movies that champion America.  Americans won’t let their children be convinced by nonsense like Body of Lies.