“To Die in Jerusalem” kills, not inspires hope
November 15th, 2007I watched the HBO documentary “To Die In Jerusalem” believing the initial hype that it portrayed fairly the tragedy that involved one side of the conflict, an incident in which a Palestinian girl commits a suicide bombing and kills an Israeli girl at a Jerusalem Market.
In one sense, it did accurately reflect everyone’s feelings. The mother of rachel Levy, the young girl who was killed, wanted to meet the mother of the young girl, Ayat al-Akhras, who committed the suicide bombing on March 29, 2002.
What I felt was unfair was the fact that even a fair protrayal of this incident is in fact not fair at all. This was an incident involving a Palestinian who murdered an Israeli. I imagine that Israelis and Jews who viewed this documentary left with a different impression than mine, but maybe it might be because the story was not turned around to portray the other, incomplete side of the whole story. “To Die in Jerusalem” could have instead been about an Israeli soldier sent in to kill an alleged terror suspect, but in the course of the attack murders an innocent Palestinian girl. Or maybe a settler who murders a Palestinian. That would be the otherside. And I would feel that the presentation only of “other side” by itself would be unfair, too.
Would HBO do a story like that, to follow the suffering of the Palestinian mother whose daughter was murdered, and then seek to confront the parents of the Israeli soldier who shot the girl? Or maybe, the mother might confront the Israeli soldier?
In that sense, the documentary was very unfair. It did not achieve any objective of bringing hope by presenting the tragedy of the two sides. Because the tragedy of the two sides were not really presented. Two parts of one side, were presented. It only showed the suffering of victims from one side, from the perspective of the Israelis being the victims.
Rachel Levy, 17, the Israeli victim, and Ayat al-Akhras, 18, the suicide bomber, are not equal. Their stories were not presented equally. What was so depressing int he documentary was that instead of inspiring hope, the documentary only made me feel more gloom. Gloom because in Racehls’ mother’s eyes and mind, I could see no sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians. And in the eyes and mind of Ayat’s mother, I saw only intransigent defiance.
I had hoped that when two victims, and both mothers are victims, would see that in the end they both lost something equally precious, that they might find common ground and instead of demeaning each other as they did during a meeting that finally took place after almost five years, they would have reached out and said sorry to each other. They did not.
Instead, Rachel’s mother said that her daughter was not a symbol of Israel’s policies of oppression and had nothing to do with the occupation at all. And Ayat’s mother insisted that as long as there is an occupation, Palestinians had a right to resist, even with violence.
Rachel’s mother did not see the tragedy in the Palestinian family and Ayat’s mother did not see the tragedy in the Israeli family.
The Israeli side also was permitted to make ugly comments about the Palestinians, such as when the Israeli reporter from the Hebrew language newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth told Rachel’s mother that the Palestinians have a culture of suicide murder. He cited the statistics showing that nearly 200 suicide bombings had taken place in a certain period, and that those 200 individuals reflected the entire population of the Palestinian people of some 5 million people in and out of occupation.
When Ayat’s mother argued that she did not know her daughter would react to the oppression of the occupation by taking her own life — stressing she would never want her daughter to die in such a way — Rachel’s mother told her to stop whining, and stop crying and blaming your daughter’s action on Israel. Rachel’s mother said the oppression of the occupation had nothing to do with Ayat’s actions. I disagree, there too, just as I disagree that responding to oppression with violence is justified. It is not justified.
Suicide bombings are abhorrent. I oppose them. They’re wrong and cannot be morally justified. Killing someone as an act of vengeance, even for an oppression that is intolerable is not an act that can ever be justified. On the same token, when Israelis kill Palestinians are argue that they wouldn’t have done it had it not been for the Palestinians rejecting Israel, that, too, is an abhorrent, disingenuous claim.
You cannot denounce one form of killing (a Palestinian suicide bomber killing an Israeli) and justify another form of killing (an Israeli soldier killing a Palestinian) and claim that is a fair portrayal. Principle is what is important, and principle was missing from the documentary.
Many good issues did arise in the documentary and people are free to hear everything and make their own decision. But when the scales are tipped so unfairly in one direction, not even the most well-intentioned person could walk away from that documentary and conclude anything fairly.
Here is the link to the HBO Web Site on the documentary. And here is the official web site for the documentary “To Die in Jerusalem.”
The producers of the documentary obviously came in with unavoidable biases.
Hilla Medalia, Director/Producer –– was born in 1977 in a suburb of Tel Aviv, Israel. After graduating from high school she joined the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). After military service, she began her academic career in the United States where she earned a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree from Southern Illinois University (2001 and 2004).
Keren Rattenbach, Co-producer –– was born in 1976 in Tel Aviv, Israel. After graduating from high school she joined the IDF Intelligence Corps. Following her military service, Rattenbach began her academic studies at Tel Aviv Management School. In 1999 she completed a bachelor’s degree in communications and management, and began working for a new interactive cellular radio station.
Maybe one day the Palestinian side of the same tragedy will be presented and in partnership, the two documentaries together might offer real hope. Right now, the one-sided protrayal as objectively as the facts were presented, weighs too heavily in one direction, towards no hope at all.
Ray Hanania
www.NAAJA-US.com
Loading ...
Loading...
To a certain extent, for there to be hope, people on both sides of the conflict will have to let go of the past, and even of some of their beliefs. We believe in this, and we believe in that. But for peace to happen, we may have to let go of some of what we believe in, in order to grab hold of something we can believe in even more, like peace. For peace to happen, we have to step out of the box that is us. We have to get over ourselves, and beyond our differences. Enough of the finger pointing. Let’s begin to point to the future, to the possibility of peace.
Hey Nissim, I agree with you very much. I also believe that Palestinians, for example, have to stop looking backwards and using the past as justification for what they do. Instead, we should be using the future (of optimism and hope) as justification to build and change and move forward with the goal being a shared justice for both sides. Not easy to change old habits.
Still, “To Die in Jerusalem” could have been far better and more inspiring if it portrayed the two sides of the problem. Two victims. Two killers. One solution of hope.
Simple, but I will bet not easy to sell, especially to HBO which does not have a good track record of balance on Arab-Israeli issues.
Anyway, your comments are right on.
Ray Hanania
hey Ray……..
but how the human body can live in peace with acell cancer?
Be optimistic when you live under occupation since 60years, its easy to say whenb you are not confronted to that…(The great majority of killed are Palestinians)
I would like to see a documentary in which a Palestinian family or mother wants to talk to the Israeli solider who was involved in raid where an innocent Palestinian bystander was killed. I think that the reaction from the side that committed the wrong injustice would be quite different to Ayat’s parents.
I did not see any remorse in Ayat’s mother nor her father. He even stated that we all die eventually so at least she died with dignity with and honor. How does any culture or any parent believe that their child killing themselves and another child has any speck of dignity or honor associated with it?
I think that an Israeli soldier, or his parents, would not think that the action that kills an innocent Palestinian has any honor or dignity associated with it.
Rachel’s mother only asked that Ayat’s mother condemn this action and tell other Palestinians that what Ayat did was wrong. That’s all she was looking for. She was looking for another person to talk to not another person’s political views.
In Israel, we all know that killing an innocent Palestinian during an operation is awful and wrong. There is no intent in performing such an action as when it happens no one can feel any honor, dignity and pride in such a result.
I can understand any Palestinian not enjoying this documentary and I support you retaliatory reaction – they should show the other side. But Ray, the outcome of this would have been different if Ayat’s mother said “What Ayat did was wrong. To all other Palestinian parents, if your children commit such acts there is no pride, no dignity, no honor – just pure loss!!!”
Right… and we live in a world of make belive, with little lepricans and… or maybe that’s why the asshole who emptied his M16 into Iman al-Hams walked. I guess he made all Israelis proud and honoured when he killed a child in cold blood so they had to let him go.
Israelis don’t live like animals in a farm. Can’t say the same for Palestinian living under Israeli occupation. I can see the honour, dignity and pride in killing someone who is part of the system that is enslaving you and ultimately responsible for their own demise.
When Palestinians are free, there won’t be an Ayat, then you will have what you asked for, till then good luck living in your fantasy world.
“When Palestinians are free, there won’t be an Ayat, then you will have what you asked for…”
“Jewish Palestine” aka “Israel” wasn’t established through violence, just maintained through it after its establishment. And with a costly compromise–post-modern, pan-islamist 1930’s style anti-semitic fascism.
No state can be established by a disorganized group of people through violent unjust acts perpetrated with a sense of indecency and ignorance. As long as the Palestinians are asking other people for freedom and dignity, it’s not going to happen. The bomber’s parents were just plain irrational. Suicidal Peasants. If this group can stop with their murder justifications, then maybe there will be some hope for the establishment of Palestinian State.
It’s called basic morality.
No.
It’s called abusive racism. And you qualify for such a title.
I’m not a racist.
Here’s a few definitions for you.
Racism: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
Peasant: usually uneducated person of low social status
Suicidal:a: dangerous especially to life b: destructive to one’s own interests
Abusive: using harsh insulting language
Name calling is one way to provoke a response. Any fool can take part in these discussions simply by accusing the other participants of ignorance, or name calling, it’s called “flaming”.
Abusive? I find it funny that people who support terrorism are most sensitive when they are accused of supporting murder. A+B=B+A
See the President of Iran if you want to learn about racist diatribe.
It burns me up that terrorism exist in the world. It burns me up that people justify it, and irrationally defend it. Thanks.
The way you justify Israeli terrorism against innocent Palestinian civilians?
Why do you think these “peasants” would be suicidal in the first place, because it’s in their genes to hate, according to Israeli propaganda and organizations such as MEMRI?
Anyways, this discussion will go nowhere. You think it’s okay to kill innocent civilians in the name of “security,” which Israel maintains mostly in the name of murder. In my opinion, that’s racism, holding a nation as one of more worth than another. Israelis dying is bad and deserves retaliation. Palestinians dying is the practice of “basic morality” and can thus be justified in the name of peace and security. That mentality is abusive and irrational.
And I don’t see anyone else here but you justifying terrorism. Who said it’s okay? I just thing it’s wrong to pass off IDF crimes, which are numerous, as just “military action” simply because they are state-sanctioned.
Do you think an Israeli’s blood is worth more than a Palestinian’s?
It is time to dive for Peace. G-d bless any one who promotes peace in our troubled region any where, any way possible.
No. I don’t justify it, the Israelis Justify it.
The Palestinians seem to be suicidal becuase there is a culture that supports it. Who is manufacturing all of those vests anyway?
People who say it’s a good thing for suicide bombers are not innocent.
Well if the Palestinian government isn’t going to put an end to it, who is?
“Palestinians dying is the the practice of ‘basic morality’” —in the world of Bizarro.
” Palestinians dying is the practice of “basic morality” and can thus be justified in the name of peace and security”
What does that even mean?
“Anyways, this discussion will go nowhere”
Who cares about Memri, or even the Bnai Brith Bowling league for that matter? Give me a break.
The only reason I am even commenting here is because I found the content of this movie so disturbing.
I simply was stating that Israel won’t stop doing what they are doing as long as the Palestinians are doing what they are doing. I also believe the Palestinians won’t stop doing what they are doing until the Israelis stop doing what they are doing. The Israeli’s probably believe that the Palestinians won’t stop doing what they are doing, even if the Israelis stop doing what they are doing. The Palestinians, too.
Please re-read my first post. My opinion was regarding the Israelis. You’re assuming I think the Israelis should be killing Palestinians, but I don’t think that at all. I wish there could be peace there.
It’s easy to call me “abusive” as a knee jerk response to an opinion based on history. It’s hard to actually add something constructive, isn’t it? Remember rule 2 of the comment policy: If you disagree with an opinion expressed in one of the articles, please refute the arguments politely. Attack the argument, not the person who expressed it.
In AA they call that “Principles over Personality” (based on the fact that I’ve quoted an AA book, you probably assume that I’m an alcoholic also–but that isn’t the case).
Israel has made concession after concession to the Palestinians, but to what end? They give up land, and get more destruction. The UN has provided billions of dollars to the Palestinians, but to what end? The money is distributed and then it is gone. The Arab countries keep the Palestinians in camps, but to what end? More war-Lebanon, right?
What is your solution then? Continue bombing each other until the bitter end? What do you think? My solution is for the Palestinians to stop terrorism… then the Israelis will stop their so called “state-sanctioned” terrorism. And then the Israelis and the Palestinians can live side by side in harmony.
Supporting suicide and homicide is wrong. Bombing into residential neighborhoods is wrong. Any justification of terrorism continues the cycle.
State sanctioned terrorism? Well, responsibility gets a little blurry here. It’s like corporation sponsored pollution–a catastrophe happens, the corporation pays a small fine, we can’t swim in the ocean anymore. The corporation has record earnings. The few guys that own the company live in mansions on top of hills, the rest of us continue our small struggle of survival in the little towns along the shore. And we’re all still using their oil.
Here are a couple more definitions for clarity’s sake:
murder: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
terrorism: : violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
You see terrorism doesn’t work. No matter who it is perpetrated against. Therefore I condem it.
Good luck in your quest for peace.
This movie is just in its portrayal. It is fair. There’s no comparison between a killer and a victim. Iraqis were killed by American forces in Iraq. If Iraqis suicide bombers were to blow themselves up in the middle of Times Square, would a documentary portraying that suicide attack be justified? It certainly would.
The last person to commit an act of violence, or which act was worse, israeli or palestinian, will always remain unclear. No matter which side we are talking about, both have experienced hurt and pain and suffering as a result of innocent casualties of a political fight over land. The point is, it’s political, and its over LAND. That needs to be the focus of this problem. Both Israelis and Palestinians have gotten caught up in an “eye for an eye” mentality because each has experienced a senseless loss in the process of a battle over land. Both sides need to acknowledge that INNOCENT people need not be casualties of this war. And it is a war. But in this day in age, people should be smart enough to use government and politics to solve these problems, so that we can all live in peace and without fear that I, as a person completely uninvolved in this conflict (politically speaking) can go visit Jerusalem and not fear for my life. And in the same respect, a Palestinian should not have to worry that an Israeli soldier will target him/her out of malice or suspicion.