The Interpreter (Sean Penn, Nicole Kidman)

6/10. This is not a bad movie, but more of the pass-time type. Nice shots of the UN and some mild US-bashing which is always a good thing.

The movie's name comes from Nicole Kidman's job as a language interpreter at the UN building in New York. Her life gets into high gear when she overhears plans for the killing of the leader of an African nation ("Matobu"), who is about to visit NYC to address the UN. She has been born and brought up in Matobu herself and apparently has a murky past, having been involved in the civil war raging there for years. She manages to pull off a sort of mysterious "white girl brought up in Africa" air with a funky accent which is kinda nice. Anyway, her report on the conversation sparks an FBI investigation with Sean Penn leading the team.

Normally I consider Penn to be a good actor but in this movie he is rather weepy. His story is that he had an adulterous wife who died just two weeks ago in a road accident while scooting around with her latest fling. Penn becomes Nicole's protector, "Bodyguard" style, because the shadowy African conspirators have figured out that they have been overheard. The intense situation that the couple is thrown in generates emotional heat punctuated by lots of weeping because Nicole too suffers a huge loss. As it turns out, both her brother and her former boyfriend have been shot to death in an ambush by Government forces in Matobu. Much to the audience's disappointment, this sort of cools the budding romance and it begins to seem like Penn won't get the yoyo. Further developments occur which I will keep secret in order to be less of a spoiler.

The movie is reasonably slick, but falters a bit near the end. Watch it at the dollar theater.

Who is the bad boy?

Saw a newsclip on CNN, featuring an irate Israeli housewife telling the world they would react in exactly the same manner if rockets were falling on Connecticut or Massachusetts. Frankly I wouldn't take it for granted that Bush would react to an attack on Mass. It's probably devil country for him.

However, I fell to thinking that it is important to dissect carefully how the world got to this point. So, assuming there exists an objective reality (OR) as far as events in the human world are concerned, I began a conversation with it.

Here are the results, (also for the benefit of Mr. and Mrs. X and Ms. Y who were at odds yesterday :-). Do comment.

RM: Why is Hezbollah firing so many rockets at Israel?

OR: Rocket firing commenced after Israel began bombing Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's cross-border raid in which two Israeli soldiers were taken hostage. Hezbollah's claim is the rockets are in retaliation for Israeli targeting of civilian infrastructure such as roads, buildings and power plants which has resulted in massive civilian casualties. Whether or not that was the real reason, it is a fact that Hezbollah's attacks began after the Israeli bombardment.

RM: So why did Hezbollah take the Israelis hostage in the first place?

OR: Well, their stated reason is to win release of their people already held in prisons by Israelis, and also several Palestinians including Hamas representatives elected to the Palestinian legislature. The Hamas representative capture by Israel is in fact a very recent development, almost immediately preceding the current crisis. However, the US and Israel do not comment on this linkage. They say it is a strategic move on the part of Syria and/or Iran, which are known to fund and arm Hezbollah.

RM: O.K., so why is Israel holding these Palestinian reps as prisoner?

OR: That began when one Israeli soldier was taken hostage in Gaza by Hamas. After that Israel commenced a military attack on Gaza and the West Bank. This included bombing of a Palestinian parliament building, aerial strikes on alleged militant strongholds in civilian areas (current death toll is about 100, mostly civilian), and capture of Hamas lawmakers.

RM: I want to ask why this Israeli soldier was taken hostage. But postponing that, since it is said that civilian casualties are Hamas' fault because it operates in civilian areas, I would like to know why it doesn't go someplace else.

OR: Hamas belongs to the class of political movements that are described by themselves and the general population as "national resistance against foreign occupation". It is qualitatively similar to any other such movement that has existed in the past or present. Therefore Hamas members are civilians, and they live in civilian areas. Resistance movements have never been known to create targetable barracks and installations. If they did, they would be lost immediately because they don't have much conventional firepower beyond small arms. Further, both Gaza and WB are densely populated areas. Unlike Afghanistan, this terrain cannot hide guerillas by itself. The same can be said for Hezbollah. Therefore, to sum up, if it is required that Hamas and Hezbollah not operate in civilian areas, that is equivalent to requiring they do not exist at all.

RM: So why do they exist?

OR: Hamas and Hezbollah were formed in response to the Israeli occupation of Gaza and West Bank, and southern Lebanon (1982 - 2000) respectively.

RM: Shit. I know I'm going to regret asking this, but why did Israel occupy southern Lebanon?

OR: During those times, the Palestinian Authority didn't exist in Gaza and WB - they were controlled directly by the Israeli military. Instead the Palestinian resistance functioned remotely in the form of Yasser Arafat's PLO and Lebanon was their main base. Hence the Israeli occupation, to defeat the PLO.

RM: O.K. then why is Gaza and WB occupied?

OR: As a result of Israel's victory in the 1967 war with Arabs. The stated aim of holding on to this territory by Israel is that it offers security in the form of a "buffer zone". However religious/far-right parties in Israel routinely refer to a "God-given" right of the Jews to these lands. These parties are not fringe groups, but hold considerable representation in the Israeli Knesset and also the central government.

RM: Has security been achieved? It has been nearly 40 years.

OR: That depends on how one defines security. If it is defined as security of the average Israeli citizen in daily life, then greater failures are hard to imagine. Israel is perhaps the most fortified country in the world and it's citizens live on hair-trigger terror alert. Everyday activities such as travelling on buses or visiting supermarkets and nightclubs can result in death from a suicide attack originating directly from the "buffer zone". If security is defined as strategic depth to battle invading Arab armies, that is not yet tested. It is also said that the strategic depth has a deterrence effect on Arabs. However, that is a matter of subjective reality, and not objective. For example, the counterpoint would go as follows: Israel is the pre-eminent military power in the region as a result of massive American aid. It is also known to possess nuclear weapons, unlike it's Arab neighbours. Therefore, if deterrence is happening, then it could just as well be due to possession of nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them without fear of similar retaliation.

RM: O.K. let's get back to the original issue: why was the Israeli soldier taken hostage in Gaza?

OR: It is not clear. In the past such hostage taking has been done to win release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails. It is also worthy of note that in the period about a month prior to this hostage taking, Israel was conducting military operations in the occupied territories resulting in killing of some Hamas members, resistance committee members, policemen and a few civilians. Hamas responded with some Qassam rocket fire at Israel which failed to cause any damage. This led to a well publicised incident where a Palestinian family picniccing on the beach was killed by Israeli artillery shells. Israel claimed it was trying to suppress the Qassam fire. The sole survivor was a 10 year old girl. In another incident that immediately followed, Israeli rockets killed 9 Palestinians and injured 30. Hamas responded by announcing the end of it's 16 month ceasefire with Israel and fired a few more Qassam rockets. More Israeli attacks took place in Gaza shortly thereafter, resulting in the death of several civilians. Hamas offered to renew the ceasefire with Israel, which was declined. However, aside from the routine violence, another important issue was that Israel had refused to repay tax arrears after Hamas won the Palestinian elections and took over the government. This effectively crippled Hamas's capacity to govern.

RM: I see, what exactly is this tax money? Why does Israel have it?

OR: Israel collects taxes on behalf of the Palestinian Authority. It also supplies utilities such as electricity, water and gas. The utility costs are subtracted from the taxes and the remainder is given to the Palestinian government. Israel cited it's view of Hamas as a terrorist organisation as reason to refuse transfer of the taxes it had collected from Palestinians in 2005. However, Israel continued to demand payment for utilities, failing which it would cut off electricity and water to the Palestinian areas. This resulted in a crisis that ultimately had to be resolved through European aid, else there might have been a prolonged blackout in Palestine which would include emergency services such as hospitals. The utilities were paid but the problem remained that the tax money was still withheld and Hamas had no money to govern.

RM: Why did the Palestinians elect Hamas then?

OR: Ahhhhh...now that's the crux isn't it? He he. Why did the US elect Bush? After all, the rest of the world hardly approves of it. As for the Palestinian's Hamas, it might be banned by several governments, but public opinion in most of the world outside the US and Israel considers it a resistance movement. Let it go, young Paedowan.

RM: You are becoming positively cool, OR.

OR: Thank you. What would you do without me?

RM: Probably be tending goats somewhere in Ladakh.

I let it go...