One doesn't need to watch the film Naza to realize that something here is very strange.
The film's bombastic claims of deliberate Israeli targeting of civilians made by two israeli filmmakers has shaken israel's public discourse, sparking outrage.
The interesting thing is that in the Arabian mind, someone is more of a target than any settler.
Why?
2 interlocked reasons.
1. because a person "like this" is perceived to be untrustworthy, for he acts against what I the believer see as the long-term interest of power/survival of his home community (Jews) which I the believer see as my foes. Thus, in the long run, he is a more serious threat to come into contact with by reason of "disloyal nature". He thinks he is helping by reason of his "disloyalty". But has exposed himself to be a threat for any future relationship. Hence we must guard from him at all costs but before we must use his "weakness" - how so?
2. He has signaled to us that if we hurt or target people of his tribe, he may increase sympathy among the rest of his home community to make concessions and withdrawls between Hudna and Hudna (War timeout). Thus serving our long term goals. We thus use him to weaken our opposition by making him a victim/ambassador, until we end him for his "disloyalty" which cannot be borne in our midst.
So, when the filmmakers say in interviews that they fear being unable to return to Israel, their fear is genuine, because deep down, they know the Arabs are using them, just as they use the Europeans - and that both can offer them nothing without having access to the object of dissection the Jews of Israel.
In essence, these two Israeli Jewish filmmakers are the lackeys of both Arabs and Europeans within a three-way exploitative dynamic.
The Europeans exploit them to manufacture antisemitic ammunition.
The Arabs exploit them to spread antisemitism as part of the Palestinian national struggle to destroy Israel. And the Jews themselves exploit the staged suffering of Arabs, suffering they helped manufacture, to secure accolades and money from the Europeans. European nihilism driven by Jew-hatred, Arab hatred driven by a narrative of victimhood, and Jewish self-hatred driven by a desire to curry favor with white people, make moneym, and some morbid pity for Gazans which translates into "Israeli peace deals" which lead always to more death —all interact in a fascinating, Orientalist dynamic. As noted, the filmmakers know they could not have made such a film were it not for their Jewish identity; thus, the label "traitor" is justified. For what is a traitor? Someone who exploits the trust and status they have earned in order to trample upon the very source of that trust undermining the source of his existence.
The directors are also "mosrim", people who betray and hand over their own people to the Gentiles. And, for that matter, those Israelis in the art and film circles who defend them are an interesting bunch. They know the film is riddled with lies and lacks credibility. Yet, what is fascinating is that if they fail to back the film's directors, the European funding mechanism, fueled by Jew-hatred in which Arabs serve as a knife against Jews (a knife that, upon striking Jewish bone, bends and becomes a victim of that very bone) and a mechanism from which these Jews themselves profit (thereby fulfilling the deep-seated stereotype of Judas Iscariot betraying and selling out his brethren for money)—would cease to exist.
Thus, their defense of the film is essentially a defense of the symbolic capital a leftist Jew stands to gain. Just as the fight against the occupation is not truly a fight against the Israeli occupation, but rather a signal to the world that the leftist Jew is the one on the "right side" of the symbolic capital pie and deserves to be rewarded for it, all while he cooks "peace" deals that will prolong the occupation and kill more arabs, and is not genuinely an attempt to end the occupation. Indeed, the occupation cannot be ended, for the moment it ceases, the Arabs would mobilize to destroy Israel - and how will these people make money off being the good Israelis?.
Hence the destruction of Israel poses a problem in itself, for how, exactly, would these people then profit and assuage their own Jewish pathologies?
