Regarding Palestine, as a viewer of a third country, what I remember most clearly is a title and a name I heard in the Central Coal when I was a child: Arafat, President of the Palestinian National Authority, in addition, also knows the "Palestine-Israeli conflict" "The term, however, is about the years-long grievances between Palestine and Israel that really do not understand, and have never had the desire to understand. Therefore, there is no way to "empathize" with the conflicts and emotions presented in this film, but can only try to understand, understand the appearance, and the suffering, helplessness and ruthlessness behind the appearance.
It was originally a matter between two people, but due to the intervention of lawyers and the media, it evolved into a matter of two camps (nations/states?). In order to win a defense, lawyers can expose their privacy and sprinkle salt on the wounds of their attorneys; the media, all they need is for something to happen and never take it too seriously; what about the public? If the public's anger can be easily ignited, it means that the anger is already in the chest and has been held for too long. And the plaintiff just needs an apology! Even when social sentiment is ignited, under the persuasion of the president, he still just wants a sincere apology. After leaving the presidential palace, the two avoided the inconvenience of opening the door, Yasser's car wouldn't start, and Tony came back to fix his car - there is actually not such a deep hatred between the two!
There are no winners in war. Once the wounds of war are torn, even if the pain can dissipate, the wounds will never heal. The pain of war is not only at the time, but also after the war, it will accompany a person's life, as well as one to several generations. When hatred lasts for decades to two or three hundred years, where will the winners come from? Baidu, "Palestine & Israel", the conflict is still continuing, at the moment.
In the long history of mankind, war has always been accompanied by wars, from the age of cold weapons to the age of nuclear weapons, which has never stopped.
Fortunately, the lawyer's statement and the court's judgment statement at the end of the film are very rational. Should there be more than just mercy for refugees/weak people? And how can it be a matter of day and night for refugees to forget their hatred? "One was insulted, the other was hurt. Did verbal violence outweigh physical violence? Or are both the same evidence? It stands to reason that physical assault is against the law, and you can't touch the law with your hands. Bottom line, except when there is imminent danger, you can only use it for self-defense, but at the same time, when people use insulting words to demean and hurt others, is it equal to the harm done by a physical attack? At this point , I find you both guilty."
Right and wrong, right and wrong, black and white. In the end, the court can acquit the defendant, and the two can "laugh away their grudges". However, how can people's anger and emotions outside the court eradicate their grudges?
View more about The Insult reviews
