Louis Theroux: the Ultra Zionists, BBC Two, review
Patrick Smith reviews Louis Theroux: the Ultra Zionists, a one-off documentary about ultra-nationalistic Jewish settlers living in the West Bank.
![\"Louis](\"http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01818/theroux1_1818262c.jpg\")
![\"Patrick](\"http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01820/Patrick-Smith_60_1820170j.jpg\")
Louis Theroux\’s faux-naive shtick has served him well over the years. From comic Yanks and unhinged celebrities to crystal meth addicts in San Francisco and gang lords in Lagos, he\’s used this ingenious interviewing persona to persuade people to open up to him. Which they often have: Jimmy Saville once confided to Theroux on camera that, during his days as nightclub manager, he would tie up miscreants and lock them in a basement. Murderers and drug dealers, too, have felt comfortable enough to let their guard down and invite him (and his camera crew) into their homes.
This technique came to the fore in last night’s Louis Theroux: the Ultra Zionists (BBC Two), a one-off documentary which focused on a small band of ultra-nationalistic Jewish settlers living in the West Bank. A home to 2.5 million Palestinians and 300,000 Jews, the area has become a focal point for violence and vilification, with both sides adamant that their claim to the land is a just one.
In his charming, disarming way, Theroux got chummy with several Jewish settlers. The one who stuck most firmly in my mind was Daniel. Originally from Australia, he is now a member of Ateret Cohanim, a Jewish group which aims to return the Jewish people to East Jerusalem by buying up properties in Palestinian areas. This property-buying in East Jerusalem is seen as illegal but when Theroux pointed this out to Daniel, he replied, with a shrug: “We’re the only country in the world that accepts United Jerusalem as United Jerusalem. I know that. So what for the world? It doesn’t bother me.”
As well as a revealing insight into Daniel\’s worldview, this was also a tribute to Theroux: despite the cameras, Daniel clearly had no qualms about being candid with him. Would a bullish news reporter, microphone in hand, have elicited such a frank and telling response? I doubt it.
Indeed it was Theroux’s off-hand presenting style that made this film novel and absorbing: he was refreshingly open-minded – and as a result was able to draw more from his subjects than many other TV journalists who arrive in West Bank with a pre-sharpened axe to grind. Some critics will argue that Theroux should have been more confrontational and challenged his interviewees to defend their arguments. But, for me, the success of Theroux\’s documentary lay in its refusal to become a polemic for either side.
