It used to be that in your Academy Awards pool you could
place good money on any Holocaust-themed or Israel-as-terror target movie to win the Documentary Feature award. It is perhaps a little too revealing of general
sentiment toward Bibi Netanyahu’s administration and its policies toward
Palestinians, the peace process, and settlements in the West Bank that not one,
but two documentaries that are critical of Israel have been nominated for the
award. The first is an Israeli and Palestinian co-production called 5 Broken Cameras. It is pure documentary
in its most simplistic format, featuring personal footage shot by Emad Burnat, a
resident of Bal’in, a Palestinian village in the West Bank. His cameras
document weekly protests of the settlements that continue to encroach upon
their land and the separation barrier that cuts them off from their livelihood.
The film is divided into segments each one marked by the destruction of one of
his cameras. In the end he displays them all on a table, some broken by the
Israeli Army, one shot, one destroyed in a car accident. All filmed with a
sixth camera that we’re told is still filming today. Burnat’s co-director is
Guy Davidi, who stepped in to help with the editing, the translation of the
Hebrew spoken by Israeli citizens and soldiers, and the voiceover narration
that steadily defines the narrative.
I tend to be rather skeptical of and suspicious of
documentaries that are framed to expose the nasty tactics of the Israeli
government and army. I do not go along with the arguments that Israel has
created an apartheid state or that it’s un-democratic. You need only look at a
couple of blink-and-you-miss-them examples in 5 Broken Cameras to see that Israel is democratic, has judicial
oversight, and a relationship with basic human rights. Those moments come when Burnat
casually refers to a Palestinian being released from Israeli custody after his
lawyer got the charges dropped (access to due process); Burnat’s treatment in a
Tel Aviv hospital following a car accident where he almost certainly would have
died in a Palestinian hospital. This happened despite the fact that his lack of
Israeli citizenship makes him ineligible for state health insurance (concern
for human rights); and an Israeli high court’s decision to move the barrier
after months of protesting (judicial oversight – even though it took years for the
decision to take effect). However, it is virtually impossible to deny, given
images on evidence in Burnat’s footage, that the settlements are anything other
than an unnecessary provocation to armed conflict and violence.
It has become increasingly clear in recent years that the
Israeli settlements that continue to be built in the West Bank are populated by
ultra-Orthodox Israelis who are to the peace process what Hamas is on the other
side. When the Bal’in villagers attempt to prevent the placement of trailers (a
quirk of Israeli law says that once a trailer is placed on the land, it belongs
to the owner of the trailer) where new settlements will eventually be built.
The Israelis who wish to build then attack the villagers, who are peacefully
protesting.
What Burnat’s record shows week in and week out, year
after year, is that his friends’ and fellow villagers’ non-violent protests are
continually met with aggression from the Israeli soldiers, who are so keyed up
that the moment a villager begins shouting, throws a stone, or gets too close,
they launch gas grenades, fire rubber bullets, and occasionally unleash live ammunition.
His camera captures a deplorable scene when soldiers who already have one of
Burnat’s friends in custody shoot him in the leg for no discernible reason.
Later, a villager regarded as happy-go-lucky, always smiling, always playing
with children, is killed during a protest.
Meanwhile, soldiers arrive in the night banging on doors,
waking families from peaceful slumber, demanding to be let in. They tell Burnat
he’s not permitted to film them with his own camera from inside his own front
door. They issue arrest warrants for villagers, children included, suspected of
throwing stones. They pronounce that the village is a designated military zone
and subject to military rules. I have been and will remain a staunch defender
of Israel’s right to self-determination, to live free of terrorism, to be a
Jewish state, and to refuse to negotiate with Palestinian terrorists. But
images like this make it really difficult to understand what the hell they hope
to accomplish. It’s a PR disaster.
Ultimately, while I found many of the images powerful and
sometimes moving or calling my belief system into question, I also found much
of the film a hodgepodge of editing and confusion. Burnat’s narration,
obviously recorded specifically for the film in the editing process with his
dulcet voice and disaffected tone. His observations contain the power of
hindsight and reflection. They are clearly not his thoughts as they occurred in
the moment. And there were too many times when I felt I could have used some
sense of context or some explanation as to what was going on.
Intercut with scenes taking place at the border fence,
Burnat includes more personal and intimate moments with his family. He tells us
early on that each of his four sons are somewhat defined by the time into which
they were born. One was born at a time of renewed hope following the Oslo Peace
Accords. Another son was born on the day of the start of the Second Intifada.
His youngest boy it seems will be shaped most by the events depicted in this
film. Here is where I question some of Burnat’s decision-making skills as a
father as when he brings his 3-year old son to the demonstration. This is a
place where violence can so quickly erupt, where there is no guaranteed
protection. Additionally, to expose a child who has no capacity for
understanding motivation and context to ghastly acts of violence is like
setting the stage for a lifetime of hate and distrust. The future generations
of Palestinians and Israelis need to trust each other to find a lasting peace.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete