#FUuumovies | All Systems Operational Normally

Watch The Zionist Idea

(240) 6.9 134 min 2015

The Zionist Idea is a movie starring Alan Rosenberg. COLLIDING DREAMS recounts the dramatic history of one of the most controversial, and urgently relevant political ideologies of the modern era.

Alan Rosenberg
Biography, Documentary, History, News
Joseph Dorman, Oren Rudavsky

Disclaimer: This site does not store any files.

Product details

Audio English  Deutsch  Italiano  Español  Français  Gaeilge  Svenska  Nederlands
Subtitles 日本語  Čeština  Português  Australia  한국어  Filipino  Tiếng Việt  हिन्दी 
Quality 480p, 720p, 1080p, 2K, 4K
Genres Biography, Documentary, History, News
Director Joseph Dorman, Oren Rudavsky
Writer Joseph Dorman, Oren Rudavsky
Stars Alan Rosenberg
Country Israel, Palestine, USA
Also Known As Colliding Dreams
Runtime 2H 14M
Description COLLIDING DREAMS recounts the dramatic history of one of the most controversial, and urgently relevant political ideologies of the modern era.

Top reviews

Thursday, 25 Jun 2020 14:13

In March 2003, I had the privilege of attending the premiere of JERUSALEM'S ELDER in the Village in Los Angeles. I was able to watch the full film at its conclusion. JERUSALEM'S ELDER was an excellent film that was able to demonstrate the unique role that the Jews of Israel played in the development of a democratic, secular and Jewish state. It had an incredibly powerful narrative that was able to highlight the irony of the Israeli government's actions in relation to the Palestinians. The film also emphasized the different facets of the Israeli people, the numerous immigrants and refugees that have migrated to Israel and the various intergenerational relationships. The film was able to focus on some of the major events in Israel's history that were relevant to Israel's current problems with the Palestinians, and the fact that the issues raised were relevant to the Palestinians, and not to Israelis. The only other film that I can think of to compare to JERUSALEM'S ELDER is AN AMERICAN REMOTE (1980), which is another film that focused on the American experience in Israel in the 60's and 70's, which ended in the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement. JERUSALEM'S ELDER was also different from AN AMERICAN REMOTE in that it was able to not only examine the actions of the Israeli government in relation to the Palestinians, but also the political problems that existed in Israel during this period, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the refugee crisis. I believe that JERUSALEM'S ELDER is the best film that I have ever seen. I have now watched it twice and it has become a part of my film collection.
Wednesday, 24 Jun 2020 12:34

This documentary, directed by Edward Wilson, tackles a very important subject in a very important manner. In a bid to put an end to the Zionists' criminal quest for an independent state, Israel would be described as the "American Zionists". In an interview, Hitler's former chauffeur, Paul Rassinier, explained that "Americans, not only Jews, have something in common with the Jews". Before he was born, Adolf Hitler had been the leading figure of a movement of National Socialists, who wanted to establish a state for Jews. This cause of his dislike of Jews was the reason why, when he took office as chancellor, he completely shut down all Jewish publications, and his influence on the Fuhrer was absolute. However, the Zionists put him on the spot when they learnt that Hitler's wife was Jewish. "Goebbels had to tell me that if you were Jewish, you wouldn't be a good Hitler", remembers Rassinier. When Hitler heard this, his first reaction was that he should hire a maid to look after his wife. Only after that he realised that he should employ Jews in the Dora Group. That is, until he found out that he had been doing it for the benefit of all Jews in the country, not just the Jews. The documentary, though it is very lengthy, manages to provide an overview of the Zionist Movement as a whole. It does this by showing the harsh treatment they had to go through from the Zionist authorities, and by going into detail about the events leading up to their establishment. What I found most impressive about the documentary is that it does not sugar-coat the subject. The documentary makes very clear that it is all about Jew-hatred, and that the first order of business was to liquidate all of the Jewish property in Palestine. The documentary does not conceal this, and even goes so far as to suggest that the Zionists would not have created a separate state in Palestine if they had not been so desperately desperate to achieve their goal. What is surprising, is that the documentary does not make the Zionist movement out to be an anti-Semitic organisation. In fact, they were mostly sympathetic people, and did not want to harm the Jewish people. The documentary does not also sugar-coat the fact that the Zionists were merely a small band of people. The fact is that they were all similar in their outlook, and they had one thing in common: they all had the dream of a Jewish state, but in fact they had failed to achieve it. However, I think that the documentary works because it presents a very balanced view of the Zionist movement. It does not support or oppose the movement, but rather presents an argument on both sides. The way the documentary addresses the Zionist movement, is by interviewing the many people who are involved in it, as well as the various people who had an influence in making it what it is. This is very powerful, as we are able to see the history of the movement, which in turn gives the audience a look at the real issue. It is also very well produced, with the story shown in a
Thursday, 04 Jun 2020 09:46

Funny. I found myself laughing out loud at the unique presentations of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians. Although I don't know the people who did the research for the film, it was clear to me that the abuse of Palestinian children by Israeli soldiers was horrible and sick. Perhaps what shocked me most was the how similar it was to the suffering that Palestinians experienced under the Ba'ath Party and Saddam Hussein's regime. Israel's occupation of Palestine is an ugly reminder of what happened to the Palestinians in the past and what the Israelis have done to the Palestinians in the present. It is time that the world finally stopped looking to Israel for "justice." It is time for the United States and the world to stop funding Israel for the sake of "peace." As a Christian, I think that all people should be required to take an Oath of Allegiance to "the United States of America" because the government has long since forsaken Judeo-Christian values. We also see that the United States, even in the 21st century, is still involved in sponsoring dictatorships and wars. The United States should be stopped from funding countries that are not democracies or that have an embargo on all the freedoms that the United States is supposed to be supporting. We should only support countries that respect the rights of minorities, that treat citizens fairly, and that are not active in supporting war and aggression. But this film does a great job of illustrating how very different these ideals are. The treatment of Palestinians by Israel is not a valid comparison. Israel has been a democracy since 1948, unlike the US, which only recognizes democracies in Europe, Australia and Canada. Israel's treatment of Palestinians is based on racism. When the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, among others, fought the Germans in WWI, they only supported the war on behalf of free people. The US and Israel now support wars because they benefit from the profits of war. By funding war, they are hurting the people that they are fighting, and are all the more likely to start a war. They are financing wars that will only help Israel, and not the Arabs. In other words, "peace" and "peace-keeping" are very different things.
Friday, 15 May 2020 12:46

I have seen many documentaries about the Zionist movement and thought that this one would be the worst. I thought that it would be a critical look at Zionism because it was the first organized nation in the world to embrace a religion. It was also an investigation of some of the more sensational aspects of Jewish life, and I was not disappointed. Not much happens in this documentary. It starts with the news that the state of Israel was founded in 1948, about a year after the UN recognized Palestine. This is the first of two parts. Part two begins with a man who is doing the rounds of the Jewish families in Jerusalem, and the purpose of the tour is to document the Jewish community's religious rituals. I was especially surprised that this man had been visiting the Jewish community in Jerusalem for almost 20 years before this trip. I found his explanations of why the Jewish religious rites are important, and how the holidays are celebrated, interesting. He gives a fascinating history of the people who built the city, especially the young people. However, the bulk of the documentary is a look at the Israelis who are protesting that Israel is a Jewish state and that the idea of a Jewish state is part of their heritage. The people interviewed in this part are not Jews themselves, but are strongly anti-Israeli. There is a good deal of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in the interviews. I was a bit put off by the fact that the Israelis interviewed were not Jewish. There is also an incredible amount of misinformation in this documentary. You hear, but never see any video of the holocaust. I understand that this is a difficult subject for people to be confronted with, but one must wonder if this is not one of the most important and tragic periods in world history. I would recommend this documentary to people who are interested in the history of Jewish religion or history. The critics of this documentary might not be able to appreciate it, but I found it interesting and would recommend it.
Monday, 11 May 2020 02:41

Ben Gurion University in Jerusalem, Israel, is a thriving town where the majority of its residents are either a) Arab or b) Christian. Most residents support the movement that was set up by Samir and Ghandi. With the founding of the modern state of Israel, the Arabs were given the right to vote and voted overwhelmingly in favor of it. After the Six-Day War, they gained a voice in the government, they could vote in their own interests, and after their victory over the Arabs, they had control over their own affairs. There is a huge scandal involving the Israel Defense Force and the Arab population of the country. An Israeli policeman, Samir Ben-Gurion, is alleged to have committed suicide after his beloved wife was kidnapped by Arab terrorists. The police initially deny any involvement and a commission of inquiry is set up to try and find out why his wife was abducted. The Arabs in the town are outraged, and the chief of police is tried, tried, tried, tried. The investigation is held in secret, and after a trial, he is found guilty. But he's sentenced to death by hanging, which would mean that his execution has been carried out, his execution has been ordered. It is then decided to commit suicide in a natural death. The film begins to show the absurdity of the situation. During the trial, the family of Samir Ben-Gurion protest that the police are trying to find out who killed his wife, and that they want to find out why. To support their position, they take a photo of the victim and send it to the judge. The judge reads the photo to the press, and he has it torn up, sending it off to the press. In the small village, the residents have a meeting, to discuss the situation. They are shocked to see the pictures of their loved one, Samir Ben-Gurion, hanging, and they are even more shocked when they learn that Samir Ben-Gurion was a hero of the Arab community. The final verdict is that Samir Ben-Gurion's wife was abducted by the police, and that she has been murdered, but he has been sentenced to death by hanging. When they are finally freed, the people of the town decide to protest against the verdict. The prime minister of Israel, Menachem Begin, is found guilty and is hanged. Samir Ben-Gurion, the police officer who was involved in the affair, has his sentence commuted to life in prison. The story of Samir Ben-Gurion shows the horror of the situation. It is sad that the people of Israel find themselves in a situation like this, and that in a country where the majority are Christians, one of the first actions taken was to commit suicide. The worst crime committed was that of the man who caused the death of a woman, and that is the injustice that was committed against Samir Ben-Gurion.
Tuesday, 14 Apr 2020 12:48

With the above comments I have to say that this film is not meant to be an impartial one. It is about the Jews and the Zionist Movement and their policies, and their conflicts with Arabs. However, I do not believe that these conflicts were trivial and unwarranted. I am sure that any historian would agree with me that every Arab, and any other other nationality, has a right to their own country. However, there were many groups in that time that were not equal to the Jews in the eyes of the Zionist movement. In that, they were demonized and discriminated against, but they were given very little in return. Jews were mostly treated as equals, but it seems to me that they got more. The film explores the events leading up to the Six-Day War and the aftermath of it. However, I did find the viewer to be a little confused about what actually happened. I found that, for example, we never see the footage of the planes dropping the bombs on the Nazis. The only footage that we see was in the film's credits. There were many similar "lost footage" that showed the Nazis using their air power to defeat the British, and other allied nations. I have no idea why the film wasn't edited in that way. I believe that the people who are complaining about the editing should start paying attention to how they speak. They are talking too much, and it is getting in their way. I believe that when you watch a film, you should be aware of the language used. As a result of that I was surprised to find that one of the speakers was reading from a sheet of paper while he spoke. That is very confusing. It looks as if they were reading from one person to the next. I think that if you watch this film, you should ask yourself the following questions: 1) Who are the people who make decisions about films? And 2) Are the people who make decisions really the best people to make those decisions?

Write a review