Nice to see that Andrew Sullivan and a few (too few) of his conservative allies have been willing to call out Mel Gibson’s anti-semitism even before it was the fashionable thing to do. Of the Passion reviews that Sully links to, this bit from Charles Krauthammer sticks out :

His other defense is that he is just telling the Gospel story. Nonsense. There is no single Gospel story of the Passion; there are subtle differences among the four accounts. Moreover, every text lends itself to interpretation. There have been dozens of cinematic renditions of this story, from Griffith to Pasolini to Zeffirelli. Gibson contradicts his own literalist defense when he speaks of his right to present his artistic vision. Artistic vision means personal interpretation.

And Gibson’s personal interpretation is spectacularly vicious. Three of the Gospels have but a one-line reference to Jesus’s scourging. The fourth has no reference at all. In Gibson’s movie this becomes 10 minutes of the most unremitting sadism in the history of film. Why 10? Why not five? Why not two? Why not zero, as in Luke? Gibson chose 10.

In none of the Gospels does the high priest Caiaphas stand there with his cruel, impassive fellow priests witnessing the scourging. In Gibson’s movie they do. When it comes to the Jews, Gibson deviates from the Gospels — glorying in his artistic vision — time and again. He bends, he stretches, he makes stuff up. And these deviations point overwhelmingly in a single direction — to the villainy and culpability of the Jews.

The most subtle, and most revolting, of these has to my knowledge not been commented upon. In Gibson’s movie, Satan appears four times. Not one of these appearances occurs in the four Gospels. They are pure invention. Twice, this sinister, hooded, androgynous embodiment of evil is found . . . where? Moving among the crowd of Jews. Gibson’s camera follows close up, documentary style, as Satan glides among them, his face popping up among theirs — merging with, indeed, defining the murderous Jewish crowd. After all, a perfect match: Satan’s own people.

The sickening thing about this whole thing isn’t just that Gibson has despicable views towards Jews (and woman and homosexuals…), but that these views were highlighted in a massive hit movie that Christians of all types insisted was historically accurate and fair in its portrayal of bloodthirsty Jewish leaders. Many churches went so far as to insist that good Christians had a moral duty to sit through Gibson’s pornographic hatefest. And in the end, as Scott at Powerline wrote, there’s something even more insidious about The Passion that hasn’t gotten much attention :

I found myself wondering how this movie would be seen by Arabs and Muslims — the kind of Arabs and Muslims that surround Israel. I think Gibson’s film is crude in ways that would make it popular viewing on Arab television outlets that otherwise specialize in 45-part serializations of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”

This is exactly right. Which would explain why the film was given special treatment throughout the Middle East :

Arab governments across the Middle East are bending or breaking their own censorship rules for “The Passion of the Christ,” the Mel Gibson film that sparked fears of anti-Semitism when it was released in the West.

In Egypt, where the film opened to large crowds Wednesday, “it’s getting a very special treatment,” said Mustafa Darwish, a film critic and former president of the Egypt Censorship Authority.

So far, the film has been released uncensored in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.

A longstanding ruling from Al Azhar University — the ultimate spiritual authority for Muslims worldwide — forbids the depiction of prophets in movies, and Muslims consider Jesus Christ a prophet. But authorities have made an exception for the controversial film depicting the final hours of Jesus’ life. Only Kuwait has blocked its release, citing the ban on portraying prophets.
. . .
Officials at Al Azhar acknowledged that they have long forbidden depictions of prophets — or even the voices of prophets — in movies, but they said they have no intention of opposing the decision of government censors to allow “The Passion” to be shown in its entirety.

“I encouraged the movie because it withholds from Jews their claims that they are innocent of the Christ’s blood,” said Mohiy el-Din Abdel Aleem, a professor of media and journalism at Al Azhar University, when asked why Al Azhar had not objected to the movie.

In short, Mel Gibson’s movie has pretty much accomplished what it set out to do, provoking hatred of Jews.