Co-director Emad Burnat with his five broken cameras. (photo credit: Kino Lorber)

The Almagor Terror Victims Association wrote to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and asked its members not to vote for two Israeli documentaries that have been nominated for Academy Awards.

Five Broken Cameras, a film dealing with the construction of the security barrier in the town of Bi’lin, and The Gatekeepers, in which six former heads of the Shin Bet security services were interviewed, were both this month nominated for the Oscar in the field of best feature-length documentary.

Five Broken Cameras was directed by Palestinian Emad Burnat and Israeli Guy Davidi and The Gatekeepers by Dror Moreh. Moreh recently spoke with the Times of Israel about how he was able to secure interviews with the five security chiefs. Davidi discussed his desire for his film to be widely seen by Israeli youngsters.

Almagor wrote in a January 11, letter, signed by organization CEO Lt. Col. (ret.) Meir Indor and Chairman Dr. Aryeh Bachrach, that the two films “create a false impression of the character of the State of Israel and are in point of fact political films whose messages are identified very specifically with the far left of the political spectrum.”

Almagor’s website states that “Israeli society has a duty to support the victims of terror, and we work constantly to lessen their burden.” The group acts through information campaigns, legal action and social media.

The letter also took aim at the political views of one of the film’s creators and one of its subjects. “Were you aware that the creator of The Gatekeepers published last weekend an interview with Yuval Diskin, one of the former Shin Bet heads, in an article in Yediot Aharonot containing personal attacks on the prime minister and defense minister of Israel for ostensibly inappropriate behavior?” asked the letter.

“After carefully reviewing the comments by Diskin, one of the film’s stars who come out exaggeratedly and with unhidden enmity against [Prime Minister] Netanyahu and [Defense Minister] Barak, we reached the conclusion that his comments were intended to boost what he would say in the second part of the interview: a political attack on Israel’s direction in security-related matters, coming as part of the political campaign accompanying elections, as interviewee Yuval Diskin hints himself,” the letter asserted.

The letter concluded that awarding an Oscar would give legitimacy to “a political film attacking the current Israeli policy of remaining in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) for historical and security reasons,” in the case of The Gatekeepers. In the case of Five Broken Cameras, it said, an Oscar would be awarding “an incitement film that demonizes that soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces and contains anti-Semitic elements.”

To the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences:

A Message from Bereaved Parents and Other Members of the Almagor Terror Victims Association of Israel

Please be aware that the two Israeli films under consideration for the Oscar for documentary film create a false impression of the character of the State of Israel. In point of fact, these are political films whose messages come very specifically from the far left of the political spectrum. The two films, especially Five Broken Cameras, do an injustice to Israel and to the security forces tasked with protecting its citizens against terrorism.

Five Broken Cameras explores the construction of the security fence at Bil’in strictly from the Palestinian perspective. At the end of this letter is a reaction to the film by our member Yossi Tzur, an activist from the community of Israeli parents bereaved by terrorism, whose son Blondy was murdered in a terrorist attack on Haifa.

With regard to The Gatekeepers: the film does in fact let six former Shin Bet heads speak, but its immoral conclusion—that one should negotiate with terrorists and that it is possible to come to an agreement with them—is offensive.

Were you aware that last weekend the creator of The Gatekeepers published an interview with Yuval Diskin, one of the former Shin Bet (Israeli Security Agency) heads, in an article in the anti-Netanyahu and leftist Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, which he used to personally attack the prime minister and defense minister of Israel for what he calls inappropriate behavior?

After a careful review of the comments made by Diskin, a star of the film, which contain exaggerated attacks on and unhidden personal enmity for PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak, we reached the conclusion that what he said was geared toward boosting what he had in store for the second part of the interview: a political attack on the direction of Israeli policy in security-related matters, delivered as part and parcel of the election-season political campaign, as interviewee Diskin hints himself.

It should be noted that we also are aware that the creator of the film attacks Israeli security policy in various other forums.

Again, the conclusion that this film reaches and offers for your consideration throughout the interviews is characteristic specifically of parties on the far left in Israel.

It is no coincidence that Knesset Member Galon, of the extreme-left Meretz party, has praised the film, saying that this is a movie that “churns the insides”with regard to the so-called “occupation.”

As terror victims, we are of the view that one must not compromise with terrorism, whether practically or, as the film would have it, morally. Even though it contains interviews with six Shin Bet heads, its conclusion—that it is appropriate to compromise with terrorists—is a political message.

In summary, if you were to give an award to one of these films, you would be giving an award to:

1. The Gatekeepers, a politically-motivated and one-sided film attacking the current Israeli policy of remaining in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) despite the historical and security reasons for doing so, or

2. Five Broken Cameras, a film meant to incite, that demonizes the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces and contains anti-Semitic elements.

We request that you take our position into account when judging the material.

As noted,we have added a letter by our member Yossi Tzur, who lost his son in a terrorist attack on Haifa.

Sincerely yours,

Letter from Yossi Tzur

I had a feeling of déjà vu today when an article about two Israeli films nominated for an Oscar—The Gatekeepers and Five Broken Cameras—threw me violently back to 2005, when an Oscar nomination went to the European-Palestinian co-production Paradise Now, a film that follows two suicide bombers over the course of the final hours before they perpetrate their attack, and one of the worst propaganda films that I have ever seen: a film that seeks to give humanity to the worst sort of murderers.

In 2005, Israel was experiencing a wave of suicide bombings by Hamas and other terrorist organizations. The national trauma was still fresh, and the movie caused me undescribable anxiety. Just as Israel was being rocked by the worst terrorist attacks in its history, a film was released in praise of suicide murderers, and it was even nominated for an Oscar. Had the world gone mad?

Today I relived that moment. I again felt as if the world had gone mad.

Five Broken Cameras describes the weekly demonstrations in Bil’in. The crux of the film is the issue of the security fence. Today, in 2013, it is clear to all, including leftists, that the fence saves lives. If during the years 2000 to 2005 there had been a fence where Arab terrorists were crossing every day to murder Israelis, then their victims would still be among us today. The issue of the fence went to the Supreme Court and emerged from it. The fence was corrected. Part of it was dismantled. The route was changed. Anyone who had an opinion was allowed to voice it.

However, a group of anarchists, including some professionals who come to Israel from abroad just to sow anarchy, come to Bil’in every week to protest, to challenge the rule of law, to create provocations in the hope that a soldier or police officer will lose his temper. Stationed alongside the professional anarchists are the professional documenters with cameras donated by leftist organizations, sworn enemies of Israel, whose aim is to portray the soldiers of the Israel Defense Forces as violent and out of control. The directors direct, the anarchists act, and the photographers film.

And now, in another stage in their assault on Israel, the rule of law and the security forces, they have presented the rotten fruits of their labors, this movie that has been nominated for an Oscar nomination.

A victory would serve to legitimize the positions of these anti-Israel anarchists and their counterparts on the Israeli far left.

The Gatekeepers, the second film that was nominated, is even more terrible in my opinion. Six former heads of the Shin Bet are featured speaking about the Shin Bet and its work, but the movie’s conclusion is that Israel has a deliberate policy of avoiding negotiations and this policy will bring on another “intifada”—again, a message of radical leftist organizations in Israel and parties on the far left of Israeli politics.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have not seen the entire movie, but the parts that I did see make me suspect that it was edited very carefully to put the director’s words in the mouths of these men who performed so admirably in Israel’s war against terrorist organizations. The Shin Bet heads, as representatives of the establishment, give the movie and its conclusions a priori credibility. It is a pity that men who did such important work, regardless of their personal political views, allowed themselves to be used to attack the State of Israel.

In its review of the movie, one Internet site that is not known for rightist views commented that “Dror Moreh squeezed his material out of six heads of the Shin Bet” and “the movie manages to push even the greatest security officers a little to the left.”

It is a matter of consensus that both of these films showcase extreme leftist and anti-Israel positions, and will be used to feed the well-greased international propaganda machine funded by groups that have an interest in bashing Israel at every opportunity. I am sorry that the films have been embraced by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, whose political leanings, seen in the recent elections in the US, are well know and tend toward the left.

The Oscar nominations are presented in the media as an Israeli achievement, but I am afraid that the nominations—and certainly an Oscar—can only be damaging to Israel. A winning film would be screened all over the world, showing not the reality of the situation, but what the movie producers want to show. The State of Israel will be the loser.

I do not understand what makes a film with such a pronounced leftist agenda so attractive. Would a film about the Palestinian education system and its anti-Semitic incitement have a chance? What about a movie about the commemorative sites that the Palestinian Authority builds in honor of mass murderers?

I assume that if a courageous producer were to come out with a movie about the Palestinian education system or the glorification of shahids (terrorists) by the Palestinian Authority, he would find himself attacked on all sides by the same leftist organizations that are going out of their way to praise the movies that have been nominated, in the best case accused of being a rightist, more likely excoriated for incitement and seeking to harm the Palestinian Authority and its leaders.

What the left does every day with impunity, sane litte Israel, with its will to live, cannot even dream of doing.

Yossi Tzur

Translated from Hebrew by David B. Greenberg

Freed Palestinian prisoners on bus Photo: REUTERS/Ahmed Jadallah

With a compromise in hand between the sides, the High Court of Justice on Sunday dismissed a petition by the Almagor Terror Victims Association to block future transfers of terrorists’ bodies to the Palestinian Authority.

In a hearing on Wednesday, the state had offered a compromise, namely that Almagor could appeal to the Defense Ministry on decisions of the state to transfer terrorists’ bodies.

Almagor had wanted a court order compelling the state to give 48 hours notice to victims’ families before transferring certain terrorists’ bodies, as exists with transferring live terrorists, to better enable appeals to the court and the public to block the transfers.

Almagor accused the state of having a policy which was tantamount to adopting the Palestinian view that terrorists were legitimate fighters, since it said only legitimate fighters should have their bodies treated with honor.

The court’s endorsement of the compromise represented a partial achievement by Almagor in that it more officially obligates the state to follow-through with its oral commitment during last week’s hearing.

However, Almagor head Meir Indor had said that if the courts failed to compel the state to give notice, it would show “the bankruptcy of the courts,” and the dismissal ended the possibility of the courts intervening directly to force the state’s hand.

He also expressed dismay that the state was accepting “terrorists’ argument that they have a political agenda,” and the idea that courts cannot intervene as they can in dealing with lesser criminals.

Almagor head Meir Indor (Yoni Kempinski)

A government policy regarding the transfer of bodies of terrorists has outraged Almagor, the organization which plays an active role in defending the families of victims of terror.

After discovering that the government of Israel, in a deal with the Palestinian Authority, intended to return most of the bodies of terrorists buried in Israel, the organization filed a petition to the Supreme Court, strongly opposing such a move.

The organization argued that if such a transfer is done, the PA will most likely hold grand funeral processions for terrorists who in their eyes are martyrs, all at the expense of the Israeli families who have already felt the unending pain of the atrocities carried out by these terrorists.

In a compromise, the organization asked the state to give the families of terror victims 48 hours notice prior to transferring the bodies of terrorists’ to the PA, based on a law from the 90’s which obligated the state to give such notice to terror victims before transferring living terrorists to the PA.

In the simplest case, Almagor wants the families to be able to object the grounds of the transfer, both publicly and legally.

The government, represented by Oren Helman, claimed that throughout the years it continuously changes its policy regarding the burial of terrorists and murderers, and that the current argument is that the bodies of terrorists should be treated in the same way that casualties of war are handled, and should be returned to the other side. Israel, in the past, did not consider slain terrorists as entitled to inclusion in the category of soldiers.

After hearing both sides, the court accepted a compromise, which would allow the families of victims of terror to contact the Ministry of Defense and ask them to prevent the transfer of the bodies on a case by case basis.

Lt. Col. (Ret) Meir Indor, head of Almagor, was incensed by the decision and the judge who he claimed “refused to even accept the request of Attorney (Naftali) Wertzberger to transfer the bodies to the PA on the condition that they will not conduct lengthy funeral services that would hurt the Israeli families.”

“The Israeli government and the High Court are now partners with the Palestinians in their glorification of terror and turning terrorists into martyrs and heroes. At this rate we’ll soon see our ministers and judges sending representatives to these funeral services and the IDF Honor Guard will drape their guns next to these graves.”

The High Court hearing of the Almagor petition against returning corpses of terrorists to the PA revealed that the return of the remains is new government policy. The Court ruled that families of the victims may appeal the return of the remains before the Defense Ministry in order to attempt to prevent it. The Court refused to demand the PA avoid burial with honors for the terrorist remains.

Almagor head Meir Indor. Photo: Facebook

In a hearing before the High Court of Justice on Wednesday, the state agreed that the Defense Ministry would be an official address for appeals by victims of terror to block the handover of terrorists’ bodies to the Palestinian Authority.

The state’s agreement to give the victims an official address was accepted by the Almagor Terror Victims Association as a compromise resolution of its petition it.

Almagor had filed a petition asking that the state be obligated to give terrorism victims 48 hours notice prior to transferring terrorists’ bodies to the PA.

The general basis of the petition was that a 1990s law obligated the state to give 48 hours notice to victims before transferring certain living terrorists to the PA.

The idea is that objectors should have enough time to both publicly and legally try to oppose the transfer.

According to Almagor’s attorney, in a number of cases the notice allowed Almagor to make its case strong enough to change the government’s mind on certain prisoner transfers.

Almagor said that the sensitivity and anguish to terror victims’ families of transferring terrorists’ bodies was equal, and so the law of giving notice should be the same.

The victims’ rights group attacked the state for distinguishing between live and dead terrorists in its sensitivity toward victims’ feelings by saying that live terrorists were a bigger issue because they could still present a danger.

Almagor argued that the chief problem with the transfers in question was that it gave the PA and other Palestinian groups opportunities to celebrate the return of “martyrs” and their terrorist acts.

It said that this phenomenon is just as big or bigger with celebrating the return of terrorists’ bodies, as with transferring live terrorists.

It slammed the state for wanting to treat terrorists’ bodies “with respect,” saying this was giving in to the terrorists and their tactics by equating terrorists with legitimate fighters.

Almagor said that it understood that in military conflicts both sides customarily give honors and respect to bodies of an enemy, but that terrorists who intentionally attack civilians on buses and in malls, and disregard the rules of war, should not be given the same honors.

“For these people, there can be no respect,” Almagor’s attorney said.

He also added that when the state says it honors the bodies of terrorists despite “their crimes against humanity,” it “disgraces the victims and [the state’s] civilians.”

Almagor noted that “the US threw bin Laden away” in the sea.

Pressed by the court that these decisions are national security decisions better left to the executive branch and which courts should stay out of, Almagor responded that it believed its argument was “not just a moral one,” but also had “legal standing.”

Almagor said that if the court ordered the state to give notice to victims to allow opposition to transferring the terrorists’ bodies, it would be giving legal voice to a law prohibiting identifying with terrorist acts.

In Almagor’s interpretation, transferring terrorists’ bodies which the state know will lead to their being praised and celebrated effectively makes the state a party to identifying or advancing identification with terrorist acts, in violation of the law.

The state said it agreed that some terrorists had committed crimes against humanity, but that was not the relevant legal question in dispute.

It noted that terrorist bodies which remain in Israel’s hands get buried, and no one is appealing against this practice.

The state said that it continues to try to negotiate with the PA to receive guarantees that returned bodies will not be the subject of celebration, but has never obtained an agreement.

It also argued that Almagor misinterpreted the law giving 48 hours notice to terror victims regarding the return of live terrorists to the PA.

Rather, the state attorney said that there is no right to veto the transfer, only a right to register protest to the transfer.

Ultimately, the state agreed to a compromise: It would not give advance notice of transferring terrorists’ bodies, but it agreed that terror victims could appeal on the issue to the Defense Ministry at any time.

Almagor head Meir Indor said that the courts’ failure to compel the state to give notice showed “the bankruptcy of the courts.”

He also expressed dismay that the state was accepting “terrorists’ argument that they have a political agenda,” and the idea that courts cannot intervene as they can in dealing with lesser criminals.