Louis Theroux and the Ultra-Zionists

[The Idler]

Louis Theroux spends time with a small and very committed subculture of ultra-nationalist Jewish settlers. He discovers a group of people who consider it their religious and political obligation to populate some of the most sensitive and disputed areas of the West Bank, especially those with a spiritual significance dating back to the Bible.
Throughout his journey, Louis gets close to the people most involved with driving the extreme end of the Jewish settler movement - finding them warm, friendly, humorous, and deeply troubling.

Thursday 21:00 BBC2

[Tommy4ever]

Tonight in 2 hours time. Looking forward to it. :)

[Die Rote Fahne]

Someone record it and upload to google video.

[Tommy4ever]

The ultra-zionists were scary.:scared:

The one thing I always love about Louis Theroux documentaries are the long and akward silences he has with the crazy people. :p

But seriously, these guys were really frightening.

[freepalestine]

it was a waste of time watching.
basically theroux is a zionist-and he gave an apololgetic platform to genocidal zionist fascists

[Manic Impressive]

honestly I was a little disappointed, I don't think he really pushed them with his questions. Seemed like there was loads of scenes of people throwing stones and a lack of probing questions. Maybe I was just expecting too much.

[brigadista]

i watched hoping it would be better and i was subjected to an hour of settler racist bullshit - these people are just like the boers -

[Sir Comradical]

D-mUChpnVyg

KhmGceshH8k

[Vanguard1917]

honestly I was a little disappointed, I don't think he really pushed them with his questions. Seemed like there was loads of scenes of people throwing stones and a lack of probing questions. Maybe I was just expecting too much.

Afraid so. It's a Louis Theroux "documentary", along with his other ones on subjects such as bodybuilding, pornography, swingers, and WWF wrestling. All very entertaining, but that's about it.

[brigadista]

dont agree that it was "entertaining" it was offensive

[Rooster]

I liked it. Wished he spoke more to the Palestinians though. The subtle criticism of it was pretty good. It's a Louis Theroux programme, it's not an investigative journalistic piece. It's about the people and the characters he meets.


it was a waste of time watching.
basically theroux is a zionist-and he gave an apololgetic platform to genocidal zionist fascists

Um, it's kinda clear that the programme was against the settlers and it wasn't apologetic.


dont agree that it was "entertaining" it was offensive

Hey, that's television.

[Tommy4ever]

it was a waste of time watching.
basically theroux is a zionist-and he gave an apololgetic platform to genocidal zionist fascists

No. That's not what happened. At all.

[ed miliband]

Pretty sure Theroux is a known scab anyway, so fuck him regardless.

[Dimentio]

it was apologetic- they were fascists,not just your average isreali,

- one example was in bilin-when the palestinian throws a rock at him-then see the conversation......

Did it openly support the settlers?

Theroux' interest does not lie in condemning the studies of his documentaries, but to allow the public to draw their own conclusions. He did a similar programme on Fred Phelps and the Westboro baptists.

[Devrim]

it was apologetic- they were fascists,not just your average isreali,

- one example was in bilin-when the palestinian throws a rock at him-then see the conversation......

I don't think fascist is a very useful term here. They are not fascists in any historical sense of the word and it amounts to little more than name calling. They were certainly the extreme right-wing fringes though.

I don't think it was in any way apologetic. I have seen this guy's programmes before, and what he does is engages with people in a completely normal manner, and tries to get them to say things that sound outrageous, and abnormal. I think he was sort of successful, not wildly so, but successful.

Devrim

[Manic Impressive]

Afraid so. It's a Louis Theroux "documentary", along with his other ones on subjects such as bodybuilding, pornography, swingers, and WWF wrestling. All very entertaining, but that's about it.
Nah I disagree his documentaries are usually excellent and really expose the under lying secrets of whatever they are investigating. I remember the Las Vegas one was amazing at showing the psychology of the people involved, something which I've witnessed first hand while anyone outside the business would not be able to see without actually spending time there. Or the last one in Nigeria where he exposed systemic police corruption, ok you might say "Nigeria corrupt? no shit sherlock" but it's rarely reported on or exposed so blatantly. So yeah I thin k Theroux's programmes are normally brilliant and one of the best things on TV. However, in this zionist one it seemed to focus on the danger to Theroux himself getting pelted with rocks every five seconds. The Zionists pretty much kept repeating the same thing over and over and he didn't manage to get past that and dig a little deeper. It didn't show anything that most people don't know already and could have done a much better job at showing the oppression that the Palestinians have to live with.

[Rooster]

it was apologetic- they were fascists,not just your average isreali,

- one example was in bilin-when the palestinian throws a rock at him-then see the conversation......

It really, really wasn't apologetic. He had Israelis talking their selves into holes, the people he was interviewing were shown to be insane ideological racists, Louis questions them about (such as the boy on the hill), questions how that guy got that house and all the luggage, questions the whole situation trying to pin the problem on the settlers. Unless you're having some language troubles then I fail to see how it was apologetic.

[freepalestine]

..... I fail to see how it was apologetic.that programme was.ask any other palestinian,or someones who knowing about that area


I don't think fascist is a very useful term here.[liberal bs] They are not fascists in any historical sense of the word and it amounts to little more than name calling. They were certainly the extreme right-wing fringes though.

tbh.more apologetic non sense devrim."oh they arent fascists blahblah ,..but extreme right wing..."
get real .they are far worse than the likes of the bnp,edl,c18,vlamsblok,fn etc...

[Devrim]

that programme was.ask any other palestinian,or someones who knowing about that area

What exactly was apolegetic. He doesn't even make any statements that could be considered apologetic. He just asks questions.


tbh.more apologetic non sense devrim."oh they arent fascists blahblah ,..but extreme right wing..."
get real .they are far worse than the likes of the bnp,edl,c18,vlamsblok,fn etc...

Certainly these people are much more dangerous than tiny fringe groups like the BNP. That, however, doesn't make them fascists.

It is interesting that you think that believing that the word fascism has a real meaning, and is not just a word to throw around at right-wing groups that we don't like is now some sort of Israeli-apologism.

Devrim

[Rooster]

that programme was.ask any other palestinian,or someones who knowing about that area


This isn't a discussion, I'm telling you that the programme wasn't apologetic. It showed everything the Israelis did in a negative light.

Oh and there's being rude and then there's being ignorant. You seem to be both.

[Vanguard1917]

dont agree that it was "entertaining" it was offensive

Yeah, i meant his other docs. I can't speak for this one, seeing as i haven't seen it yet.

[PhoenixAsh]

He wasn't apologetic. He was making a program about this group showing their reasoning, heir ideology, their lack of logic and the way they view the world by asking question to an extend in which they have no more answers.

He makes no apologies, he makes no excuses. He just shows what these groups believe. He does also not condemn them nor offer counter prove of the arguments.

He lets their believes speak for themselves...and leaves it to the viewer to assess their views for themselves.

You are confusing neutrality with apologetic. You do not have to be condemning to be considered non-apologetic.

[Rooster]

This actually reminded me of Northern Ireland somewhat.... did anyone else get that vibe?

[PhoenixAsh]

yes that maybe right .
nevertheless notice the questions he asked to the 2 palestinians, the young guy at bilin and the community organiser at silwan,jerusalem
-.in the 2nd part.

What he showed was people being under siege and what that did to them.

What he also showed is that many Palestinians do not hate the Israelies but hate their repression. He also showed that the occupation and position of Israel is causing extremism and support for Hamas.

The feeling I got from watching the documentary was that the problems lie within the Israeli policies and were not inherrent of the Palestinian people.

[The Idler]

He could have spoken to Palestinians more, but he gave the Israelis more airtime (this made sense given Zionism was the subject of the programme) and the Zionists indicted themselves.

[brigadista]

What he showed was people being under siege and what that did to them.

What he also showed is that many Palestinians do not hate the Israelies but hate their repression. He also showed that the occupation and position of Israel is causing extremism and support for Hamas.

The feeling I got from watching the documentary was that the problems lie within the Israeli policies and were not inherrent of the Palestinian people.


but he didn't really speak to any Palestinians -

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I agree with both Hindsight and brigadista. I don't think he was being apologetic, Theroux's style (which I like, bit of a fan really, saw him in real life once) is intended to let the people he is interviewing expose themselves as reactionary, to have ideas based on no rationality or proper reasoning even with themselves etc. I think he achieved this to some extent but it's true he didn't talk to many Palestinians. For example there was that incidence where those houses had been newly bought and that large guy, who was a Palestinian, was shouting at the australian zionist saying something about a friend getting chucked out. I have no idea why he didn't interview him. I think there was some restrictions on what he was allowed to do, considering this was a BBC production and their stance on the Gaza crisis, and just about anything really, leans heavily towards the capitalist class, or zionism.

[Diello]

I agree with both Hindsight and brigadista. I don't think he was being apologetic, Theroux's style (which I like, bit of a fan really, saw him in real life once) is intended to let the people he is interviewing expose themselves as reactionary, to have ideas based on no rationality or proper reasoning even with themselves etc. I think he achieved this to some extent but it's true he didn't talk to many Palestinians. For example there was that incidence where those houses had been newly bought and that large guy, who was a Palestinian, was shouting at the australian zionist saying something about a friend getting chucked out. I have no idea why he didn't interview him. I think there was some restrictions on what he was allowed to do, considering this was a BBC production and their stance on the Gaza crisis, and just about anything really, leans heavily towards the capitalist class, or zionism.

I've only seen one other Theroux program-- the one where he went among the Westboro Baptist Church-- and his approach here sounds like his approach there. With the WBC, I got the feeling that he (or the producers-- whoever was, finally, assembling the piece) felt that saying "THESE PEOPLE ARE CRAZY THESE PEOPLE ARE CRAZY" would have been superfluous.