The main premise of Relentless is an examination of the Oslo process and how well each side has done in meeting the commitments under the agreements between 1993 and 2001. The film has been updated to include the current Intifada, but there is no mistaking its slant is that Oslo was a failure. Very effectively, the film makers show how well the Israelis have done in complying with Oslo commitments and how Arafat’s PLO have utterly failed to make any progress.

Many in the audience used the not-so-Jewish cliché, “preaching to the choir” to describe the event. Certainly it seemed that everyone there was on the same page in feeling that Israel’s side of the story is not being accurately nor effectively portrayed to the world. It’s not at all surprising that those present would like to get the message of the documentary out to a much wider audience. So, what’s the problem?

It doesn’t matter how factually accurate or truthful the work is, the main problem is the work is unlikely to be broadcast by anyone. Due to its propaganda-like tone and the way it stirs emotion it is unlikely to ever be broadcast. One-sided documentaries are anathema to American TV… especially one-sided pro-Israel projects. So we are faced with a dichotomy.

Compliance with the Oslo Accords, and with the Road Map, has been one-sided. The Arabs have failed to meet ANYand all commitments while the Israelis have gone to great lengths to comply with its obligations under the agreements. But… one-sided stories are not acceptable for broadcast. How can you present a one-sided story and remain balanced? The inability to tell our side fo the story almost as frustrating and hopeless as the situation itself. Meanwhile the left, and the uneducated continue to sop up Arab propaganda and the cycle continues.

Our little group viewing Relentless had no solutions. There were a couple of calls to educate our children with anecdotal evidence that maybe they were being sheltered from the truth. There were calls to write letters to the local paper and to the local TV stations. There was little disagreement, although there were a couple of contentious issues.

One man brought up the unmentionable T word, in pointing out that transferring or deporting the Arab population of Israel is an unmentionable solution, that it is not politically correct, but ought to be considered. There were quite a few nodding heads about that but the discussion was cut short as one of the moderators said, “We Jews are better than that,” as she changed the subject by taking another comment.

One interesting exchange was in regards to the emphasis the Arabs were putting on the Security fence and the difficulty in demonstrating the fence is not a border while continuing with its construction. One man spoke up against the fence, siting Thomas Friedman’s views. Friedman’s name got an immediate reaction from a couple of men.

One asked, and I paraphrase, “How can you quote Thomas Friedman as an expert opinion when he has been wrong about so much. He has been entirely wrong about the whole Oslo process.”

“I only put his views out as something to consider,” was the answer to which someone else pointed out that Friedman’s position against the fence is a good reason for many to support it.

By the time that exchange took place, most people were leaving and the discussion came to an end on its own. There were no closing remarks, no summary, no call for action. The evening was completely unsatisfying, although I’m glad I went.

I had hoped to be inspired and guided to some sort of action. There were no suggestions from the film or the audience, and, as I said, the documentary leaves you with no hope about the situation. I left a bit depressed and frustrated. How might things have been different?

First of all, 65-80 people is too large a group to have a meaningful discussion about the film. Our moderators could have done a better job, but it still would have been better to talk in smaller groups and then have the thoughts summarized.

The film itself focuses too much on Oslo. I wish there had been some mention of the first partition of Mandatory Palestine in 1922, there was none. There was a brief reference to the 1948 War and no mention of the formation of Jordan, they could have done a better job of framing the problem historically.

The implied message was that Oslo’s failure has made us mad, so something needs to be done. A clip from an Egyptian TV show where two Egyptian men are cheerfully talking, may have summed up the film’s assumption. “Either the Jews will drive us into the sea or we will drive them into the sea, there will be no compromise.”

We MUST consider the possibility that the Arabs don’t want peace, and will never accept Israel as a neighbor. It just might be true that the Arabs will never accept compromise. Answering that question should be the first priority of any peace process.