Overview: Using never-seen-before interrogation footage, this investigation of Benjamin Netanyahu and his inner circle provides an unflinching gaze into the private world behind the headlines. Petty vanity and a sense of entitlement lead to corruption and the Netanyahus' unwillingness to give up power. The extreme right senses opportunity in Bibi's weakness, and the dominos fall.
Using what looks like some clandestine filming of interviews, Alexis Bloom offers us a critique on the personality that has led Israel for four terms as it's Prime Minister. At this point it's probabl...
Using what looks like some clandestine filming of interviews, Alexis Bloom offers us a critique on the personality that has led Israel for four terms as it's Prime Minister. At this point it's probably worth pointing out that if you are an any way a protagonist of this man, his methods, beliefs and principals then this is not a documentary that you're likely to love. Indeed, throughout it's two hour duration there are few with a good word to say about the man. From the perspective of a neutral "observer", that's fine but the lack of balance and it's nature as a piece of rather shameless character assassination does render it impotent after about half an hour. Certainly this man was charming and charismatic; I remember him regularly appearing on British television as a spokesman for a nation that seemed to be living in a constant state of siege. Now he needs to answer his own questions. Does the end ever justify the means? What he is trying to achieve is "total victory" for his people. Does that mean perpetual warfare, complete annihilation of their foes, territorial expansion? He is seen with both Trump and Putin; he addresses an applauding Congress in Washington D.C. and yet the editorial here is so obviously skewed against him that all it does for me is bring into question the relative merits of all of our "democratic" leaders. From the interior of his less than sumptuous office we don't get any sense of a structured investigation into his alleged corruption. We, instead, witness what appear to be some informal spatting sessions between a man in a tie and some others in uniform. There is no arbiter, no sense of the seriousness of what's being discussed. It's not just about a few cars or a bottle of Louis Roderer, but the judicious use of political power in return for favours. Nicholas Sarkozy is currently on trial for corruption. Donald Trump is on the wrong end of almost $500 millions in fines and compensation. It's hardly an uniquely Israeli problem, and neither Germany nor Canada are sheltering armies of terrorists or missile launchers. Power corrupts. Fact! Is he grooming a dynasty? Is he using his office to shield himself from investigation? Is he trying to geld the Supreme Court? Does his wife Sara really pull the strings? Well possibly, probably - even almost certainly, but the absence of contributions from any of his proponents left me thinking this was just a hatchet job done by those on the left - traditional home of the moral high ground; without actually structuring a critical assessment of a man who leads a nation that's divided, and divided profoundly along grounds of religion zealousness and territorial ambitions. It seems to suggest he is some sort of despot, but again - show me a nation in that part of the world where leadership is not concentrated in the hands of one man, family, tribe? The very fact the people are free to take to the streets and protest has to be worth noting. The last twenty minutes veers perilously close to suggesting that he used or procured funds to prop up the regimes he is now so actively fighting and, indeed, that many other nations are complicit in this game of regional dominoes. That could have made for an interesting discussion in itself if it had been presented in a less simplistically linear fashion. Tunnels under hospitals for hostages or sewage pipes? Yes, it stimulates debate but only if you are prepared to look past it's obvious blinkers and accept the man represents a significant section of a radically polarising nation. Is he cause or effect, both or neither? Sadly, you won't really find any answers here.
