History of Palestinian-Israeli Conflict in 20th Century

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Western Perspective
Arab Perspective
Bridging the Divide
Conclusion
References

Introduction

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has attracted a lot of international media attention (Gelvin, 2007). Indeed, many concerned international parties have tried to contribute to the peace process by proposing several peaceful solutions to end the conflict. However, none has been successful. Notable peace processes that have failed include the Oslo Accords of 1993, Camp David Summit of 2000, Taba Summit of 2001, and the Arab peace initiative (Gelvin, 2007).

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict started in the 20^th century as part of a wider conflict pitting Israel against its Arab neighbors. The main contentious issues are the status of Jerusalem, treatment of Palestine refugees, Israel’s security, Palestine’s violence outside Israel, water resources, Israel’s occupation of the West bank, and the violence of Palestinians against other Palestinians (Gelvin, 2007).

For a long time, western filmmakers have conceived the Palestine-Israeli conflict with varied views regarding its origin and solutions. However, recent years have seen an emergence of Palestinian films, which give a different view of the conflict.

The emergence of Palestinian filmmakers in re-telling the conflict is a departure from the western perception of the conflict (which has formed the bedrock for the creation of the mainstream perception of the conflict).

The emergence of Palestinian filmmakers in re-telling the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has introduced a “new” perspective on understanding conflict. The differences between the “old” and “new” perspectives of the conflict form the framework for this paper.

This paper therefore explores the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through the perspectives of Arab filmmakers and the mainstream understanding of the same conflict.

This analysis provides an appropriate framework for comparing and contrasting the way Arab and western (mainstream) filmmakers have approached the conflict. This document therefore divides into two main sections that explain both perspectives. A bridge that merges the two perspectives also manifest in the works of a few western filmmakers.

Western Perspective

Western filmmakers have shaped the mainstream public perception of the Arab-Israeli conflict. According to some observers, the western interpretation of the conflict has been unfair to Palestinians (and by extension, Arabs). According to Fisher (2010), the biggest misfortune from this understanding is the acceptance by most neutral observers of the western understanding of the conflict. Western filmmakers have always portrayed the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as an act of terrorism that requires immediate action.

According to a past study which was reported in Fairness and Accuracy Reporting (a watchdog media agency), about 81% of western media portrayed Palestinians in bad light (Azar, 2011).

Similarly, through the finding, Fairness and Accuracy Reporting said that there was a higher likelihood (about 80%) of western media to report Israeli deaths in NPR, while there was a minimal likelihood (about 34%) of Palestinian deaths to be reported in the same medium (Azar, 2011). This bias manifested through a 7-month period that Fairness and Accuracy Reporting conducted the study (Azar, 2011).

Another independent media watchdog, If only Americans Knew, conducted a similar study in 2001 to assess the portrayal of western media on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The study analyzed the representation of fatalities through three main media agencies – ABC, CBS, and NBC.

The study showed that all the three media agencies reported three to four times more Israeli deaths than Palestinian deaths (Azar, 2011). Again, it is imperative to say that realistically, more Palestinians died in the conflict than Israelis did.

Such biases have created many frustrations for most Palestinians who believe that there is a sheer lack of context when western media and films report on the conflict. Such biases have created significant misrepresentations and misunderstandings regarding the conflict (Azar, 2011).

For example, few people understand that Israel is the occupying force in the conflict, because according to UN resolution 194, Israel should have seized all hostilities in Gaza and the west bank, and allow Palestinian refugees to settle without conflict (Chatty, 2010).

Generally, according to Fisher (2010), the main criticism of western films and media in representing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict stems from their distortion of the crisis. Indeed, they create the perception that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict occurs in some form of vacuum.

Similarly, there is no contextual understanding of their representation. For example, there have been violent and non-violent efforts made by Palestinians to end the conflict, but western films have been fixated in amplifying the violent efforts of Palestinians to end the conflict (Fisher, 2010).

Unsurprisingly, many Palestinians feel frustrated by the western portrayal of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Consequently, many Palestinians believe that western filmmakers vilify them (Fisher, 2010). Several explanations explain the bias of western media in the conflict. The main plausible explanation is the understanding that America has more interests in Israel’s security, as opposed to Palestine security. The truth of such an assumption is debatable.

Arab Perspective

Broadly, the views of Arab filmmakers in the Arab-Israeli conflict differ from the views adopted by most western filmmakers. For instance, unlike western filmmakers, Arab filmmakers show a more comprehensive understanding of the conflict.

Western filmmakers tend to fixate on the wider ideological and political differences without a “grass root” understanding of the conflict. Therefore, unlike western filmmakers, who understand the conflict through a narrow understanding, Arab filmmakers try to show the “bigger picture” of the conflict (Armes, 2010).

Certainly most Arab filmmakers try to overcome the wider historical and political rhetoric surrounding the conflict and instead focus on the moral and ethical implications of the conflict on the lives of people. Therefore, instead of focusing on national differences between Israel and its neighbors, many Arab filmmakers derive a personal understanding of the conflict. Such personalized accounts of the conflict manifest through different Arab films. One such film is the Syrian Bride (produced in 2004).

The Syrian Bride narrates the story of a young woman who had to choose between her homeland and her fiancé. The underlying political dynamics between Syria and Israel and the animosity that exists between the two regions informed her choice. In detail, the woman had to face the possibility of abandoning her homeland for her Syrian fiancé since the border police could not allow her to come back after crossing into Syria.

Generally, the Syrian Bride depicts the influence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict on the lives of ordinary people who have to make personal decisions, based on an ongoing political conflict that affects two regions. Through the film, it is easy to see how Palestinian filmmakers draw a more “humane” understanding of the conflict by describing how it affects the personal lives of those affected by the conflict.

Moreover, Palestinian filmmakers explain the cultural underpinnings surrounding the lives of the affected people. For example, the Syrian Bride also explains the cultural motions surrounding the young woman as she decides to defy cultural norms and seek a partner from an enemy nation (Syria). This film presents a well-thought analogy of the impact of the conflict on the lives of people.

The film, the Chronicles of a Disappearance, is also another Arab film that narrates the personalized views adopted by Arab filmmakers as they explain the Israeli-Arab conflict. The film narrates the story of the filmmaker, Elia Suleiman, who returns to Israel after a long absence in a foreign land.

A lot of uncertainty and suspense characterize his return to the Israeli West Bank to depict the uncertainty and suspense that outline the Arab-Israeli conflict. Suleiman’s film is among some Arab films, which have received critical international acclaim both in the United States and around the world.

The greatest difference between his film and other Arab films stem from its direct approach at addressing some of the political issues that characterize the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, land has been a contentious issue in the conflict. The film directly addresses this issue by taking a firm position to claim that Nazareth and Jerusalem are part of Palestine. Some critics say that the direct claim of ownership, as implied in the film, is irresponsible because Israel has had a long history of sovereignty over the territories (Armes, 2010).

Another issue that emerges in the film is the loss of the Palestinian identity in the west bank. By naming his film, the Chronicles of Disappearance, Suleiman referred to the loss of the Palestinian identity in the west bank and other occupied territories of Israel. The filmmaker however tries to avoid the political arguments surrounding the conflict by producing the film in a witty and hilarious manner.

Lastly, the film, Divine Intervention, is also another work of Elia Suleiman, which takes a witty undertone when explaining the political and ideological differences that characterize the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. The story revolves around the life of a young Palestinian man living in Nazareth (to depict the life of ordinary Palestinians living in Nazareth).

The protagonist tries to overcome the hostilities between Israel and Palestine by struggling to meet with his girlfriend who lives a few border checkpoints away. Divine intervention created many controversies when people nominated it for the best foreign film award, in 2002. Some organizers said that since they did not recognize the sovereignty of Palestine, they could not admit the film in this category (Armes, 2010). Others claimed that the film should be an exception to this prejudice (Armes, 2010).

Broadly, many Arab filmmakers differ from their western counterparts by explaining the Arab-Israel conflict through humorous and personal accounts of the conflict. Suleiman has done a great job in doing so. Therefore, while many ideological differences exist in the conflict, Arab filmmakers have been able to create a humorous undertone of the conflict by indirectly exploring the causes and effects of the conflict on the Palestinian people.

Their efforts to explain the conflict on personal accounts, of fictitious and real characters, also re-tells the Palestinian-Israeli conflict through a “new” perspective because many western filmmakers may find it difficult to relate to the Arab experience. Indeed, through most of the films described above, Arab filmmakers tell the impact of the conflict through personal accounts. This way, it is easier to understand the conflict on a personal level, as opposed to the nationalistic accounts of the same (as portrayed by western filmmakers).

Through the perception of western filmmakers, it is difficult to understand how the conflict affects people on a personal level. Arab filmmakers have managed to overcome this challenge (Armes, 2010). Moreover, Arab filmmakers have provided the contextual understanding of the conflict by transcending the deeply divisive ideological differences that exist between Israel and Palestine authorities (by showing how such divisions affect individual lives).

It is also crucial to mention that some Arab filmmakers have gone further and tried to advance the Palestinian view of the conflict. For example, Chronicles of a Disappearance has tried to advance the Palestinian view of the conflict by stating that Jerusalem and Nazareth are part of Palestine. While many people may share mixed views regarding such a statement, it is important to appreciate the attempt by some Arab filmmakers (like Suleiman) in advancing the Palestinian agenda in the conflict.

Bridging the Divide

As shown above, Arab and western filmmakers adopt different approaches for explaining the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both groups of filmmakers try to represent their interests in the conflict. For example, the western understanding of the conflict has been aggressive on national security issues, while Arab filmmakers have adopted a defensive stance by trying to show the world that they are not “evil”, as portrayed by western media.

This issue firmly depicts both groups on opposite ends of the debate. However, there has been an attempt by some western film producers to merge the divide by explaining the full story regarding the conflict. Such perceptions have prevailed in some western produced films such as Steven Spielberg’s, Munich, which tries to depart from the traditional understanding of Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as a victim of terrorist acts.

Spielberg tries to portray both protagonists of the conflict in a more realistic light by giving a more comprehensive understanding of the conflict (Kowalski, 2008).

His film follows an assassination squad that works to kill several Palestinians suspected of masterminding a 1972 terror attack in Munich. At first, the film stands out as a pro-Israeli film because Israeli soldiers dominate most of the production. Moreover, Spielberg narrated the assassination from the Israeli point of view. However, as the film progresses, Spielberg slowly constructs the Palestinians as victims of Israeli aggression.

In fact, Spielberg gives the victims a human face by showing their personal lives (a trend that is unlike most western-produced films) (Kowalski, 2008). Spielberg therefore gives a human face to the four suspects by either portraying them as family men, artists, or socialites. Therefore, instead of portraying the victims as Jew-hating villains, Spielberg portrays them as ordinary people. Consequently, instead of the audience rejoicing about their death, they feel some sense of unease and loss.

The main message in Spielberg’s film is the advancement of the belief that not all Palestinians are terrorists. Moreover, not all Palestinians are evil people. Western filmmakers have always shied away from this representation because they have often depicted Israel’s actions as pure defense. Such new western representations bridge the divide between Arab and Western filmmakers.

Conclusion

Media stereotypes that depict the Palestinians as terrorists and Israel as terrorism victims have characterized the view of Arab and Western filmmakers in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Their main distinction is their approach to the understanding of the Palestine-Israeli conflict because Arab filmmakers try to change the perception that the Middle East is an unfriendly region that does not want peace, while western filmmakers portray Arabs as aggressors.

Arab filmmakers try to change this perception by showing Arabs as ordinary people who have lives to live, just like everyone else. Through this representation, they advance the idea that they are not “evil” as western filmmakers try to portray them. They also try to debunk the belief that Israel wants peace by also apportioning blame for the atrocities committed in the war to Israeli forces. More specifically, they try to have a balanced approach of the conflict by describing the holistic and contextual issues surrounding the conflict.

Comparatively, western filmmakers “buy” into the rhetoric that many Arab countries do not want peace. They also thrive on the idea that Israel’s actions are defensive, thereby creating the impression that Israel’s hostilities in the conflict aim to protect the country.

From both sides of the divide, it is easier to point out “half-truths” from filmmakers who want to advance partisan interests in the conflict. For example, some people accuse western media of favoring Israel because most of them live there (Armes, 2010). The same accusations may be true for Arab filmmakers.

However, it is crucial to have an objective understanding of the conflict through the production of objective films that do not show one-side of the story. It is equally crucial to eliminate any form of bias that may exist in the process of making films. This way, we can have a contextual and holistic understanding of the conflict without buying into any bias from Arab or western filmmakers.

References

Armes, R. (2010). Arab Filmmakers of the Middle East: A Dictionary. Indiana: Indiana University Press.

Azar, K. (2011). American Foreign Policy and Its’ Link to Terrorism In the Middle East. New York: AuthorHouse.

Chatty, D. (2010). Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fisher, A. (2010). Trials of Engagement: The Future of US Public Diplomacy. New York: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Gelvin, J. (2007). The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kowalski, D. (2008). Steven Spielberg and Philosophy: We’re Gonna Need a Bigger Book. Kentucky: University Press of Kentucky.

Click Here To Order Now!