Angelina Jolie and Oliver Stone’s Terrorist Problem
December 2, 2004
By Debbie Schlussel

The box office flop of “Alexander” is cause for celebration.

That Stone’s pretentious film debuted at a weak sixth place—well behind the animated “The Incredibles” and “The SpongeBob SquarePants Movie”—is even better.

Not because of its debatable portrayal of “Alexander the Great” as bisexual.

But because “Alexander’s” director, Oliver Stone, and star, Angelina Jolie, are Soft On Terrorism.  Extremely soft.  Especially Palestinian terrorism.

OLIVER STONE’S TERRORIST BUDDIES

Remember the 2002 Passover Massacre, when a Palestinian suicide bomber blew up 29 innocent, elderly Israelis celebrating the important Jewish holiday?

Right after that, Oliver Stone paid homage to Yasser Arafat, visiting the now-deceased Palestinian terrorist-in-chief at his Ramallah compound.  As if that weren’t enough, Stone had a friendly visit with Hamas Ramallah chief Hassan Yussef.

Then, Stone made a sympathetic “documentary” on Arafat for HBO (“Persona Non Grata”).  It mimicks Stone’s “talent” for presenting fiction as fact—as he did in “JFK,” “Nixon,” and “Alexander”—and glorifying malefactors and the hate-America crowd, while denigrating American institutions—as he did in “Commandante” (exalts Fidel Castro), “Born on the Fourth of July,” “Natural Born Killers,” and “Platoon.” 

Stone said he made the Arafat cellu-lie in a search for "long-term classical values: what your life was like, what the meaning of your suffering was, what regrets you have."  In case you can’t tell, the “you” and “your” refers to Arafat.  No Stone documentary on the classical values and suffering of any of Arafat’s victims, though.  Instead, Stone’s 80 hours of footage include many interviews with Palestinian homicide bombers.

In an interview with famed Hollywood “Variety” columnist Army Archerd, Stone said of the homicide bombers that he “understands why they feel the way they do.”

Stone denied documented reports that the Palestine Authority used terrorism as a strategic means to get a Palestinian State.  When Archerd told him of the anti-Semitic education of Palestinian youths and the glorification of suicide bombing, Stone both denied and justified it, saying, "The memories are long as are the grudges and feuds."

Stone also said, “The (Jewish) settlements (on the West Bank)  . . . . The Israelis have no business in the West Bank.  The settlements have to be gotten out of the West Bank.”  How about getting Oliver Stone out of West Hollywood?!  Or better yet, the movie biz.  Stone also likened Jewish residents—including those of suburban Jerusalem—to “vigilantes of the Old West in America.” 

So, we know Oliver Stone supports bigoted ethnic redlining in residential areas.  What if the U.S. Government told him he wasn’t allowed to live in his Hollywood mansion because of his ethnicity?  (In a stab at exoticism, he claims to be African-American, Anglo-Saxon, German, Jewish, Irish, and all other ethnicities he could think of.)

ANGELINA JOLIE’S TERRORIST FRIENDS

Then there is Angelina Jolie.

She spends a lot of time in “Alexander” with snakes writhing around her, saying that she “loves” snakes and “understands them.  They became like my family, my accessories.”

That might explain the snakes she’s hanging out with as a “Goodwill Ambassador” for the UN High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR).  In July, Jolie attended the Arab Children’s Congress in Amman, Jordan. 

Organized by Jordan’s Queen Noor and billed as a way to support children and protect their rights, it’s really an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic hate-fest.  Several groups which organized the Congress are “charities” known to fund terror.   Dubai, which has strong ties to 9/11 hijackers and other terrorists, funded much of the Congress.  

The annual meeting is a kid’s version of the UN Conference on Racism—where any problem for Arab children anywhere in the Arab World (and five European countries, which sent kid delegates) is the fault of the Jews and Israel.  Through drama, dance, painting, and crafts, they teach the children young -- all with movie star Angelina Jolie as a willing participant and the guest of honor.  Pictures across the Arab world showed her kissing Queen Noor during the conference.

Angelina Jolie at Arab Childrens Congress hate-fest.

Angelina Jolie kissing Jordan's Queen Noor at Arab Childrens Congress Hate-fest.

During the conference, Jolie, in a Jordan Times interview, said that she “hoped to be able to bring aid and awareness to conflict zones not covered by the media.”  But Jolie must be blind and deaf, because the only “conflicted” people she speaks of are the most overly media-covered group, the Palestinians.  “Here, so many people have been uprooted for so long and have such terrible living conditions,” Jolie lamented, adding that she planned to travel to “Palestine” soon.

If Jolie were truly interested, she might wonder why Palestinian refugees are still refugees—why they live in such living conditions and why for so long they’ve been without a country.  Instead of commending Jordan “for hosting the world’s largest group of Palestinian refugees . . . for more than 50 years,” it just might occur to her that they are still refugees because Jordan and the other Arab countries represented at the Arab Children’s Conference won’t allow Palestinian refugees to be absorbed—for fear of losing a political tool against Israel.  They won’t allow them to live outside the refugee camps, own property, or use public services as regular human beings. 

In Jolie’s favorite Middle East tourist spot—the “Hashemite Kingdom” of Jordan, Palestinians are not allowed to run their own country.  Palestinians are between 70 and 90 percent of Jordan’s population, but are ruled by Hashemites, like King Abdullah.   Instead of recognizing this, Jolie called Palestinian refugees in Jordan “displaced” from their country, thanked Jordan “for keeping its border open,” and commended the Jordanian government “for hosting the world’s largest group of Palestinian refugees  . . . for more than 50 years.”

Jolie claims, “I will always be a great supporter of children’s rights,” but she doesn’t seem to care much about the rights of the child victims of Palestinian terrorism, only the progeny of those who commit and support it.  A much-heralded December 2003 visitor to the Ruweished Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, Jolie wrote diaries lamenting the treatment of Palestinians.  While she doesn’t mention Israel by name or specifically endorse cold-blooded murder, you get the drift.  She approvingly quotes the kids and a play they do about Jerusalem “about Arab children and how they live”: 

“Palestine was sold by merchants.  God knows we are injured and hurt.  Be patient we will take our revenge [sic] we will take our homes back  . . . . (Smiles, fists in the air)  Palestine, your name is in our veins. . . .Their dream is to see their homeland. . . .  It was very moving to hear them speak of the dream.”

Hmmm, Angelina, what do these precious refugee kiddies mean by, “We will take our revenge”?  Which part of that was “very moving?”  No disapproval from Ms. “Tombraider,” anywhere.  Instead, she marvels at and sympathizes with this cute and cuddly group of “frightened” children.  In fact, Ruweished, like all Palestinian refugee camps, is a training ground for terrorists--the future revered profession of Angelina’s new little friends.

And a lot of the refugees at the Ruweished camp, near the border of Iraq, are not even Palestinians.  Some are Somalis.  Others are the hundreds of Palestinians living in Iraq who fled at the start of the U.S. War on Iraq.  When they wanted to return to Iraq, UNRWA (the UN agency we fund with millions, which runs the camp) tried to coerce them to stay at the camp. 

But hoping Jolie would get a clue on this is like wishing the contents of her head were as robust as that of her lips.  It’s like hoping she would, indeed be “Gone in 60 Seconds,” instead of helping those who support “Taking Lives.”

With his and Jolie’s “Alexander” a huge flop in America, Stone said the more sophisticated Europeans “tend to see me a little differently than they do in the U.S.”

Wrong.  Americans just see this Emperor-with-no-Clothing’s “films” for what they really are:  cinema not-so-verité.