Paradise by the bomb blast lights

Continuing to skip ahead as I wait for Xiu Xiu, I watched Paradise Now.  Wow, what a film.  I think this one will stay with me longer than The Color of Paradise or Raise the Red Lantern, both of which I had seen prior to taking this course.  

Consider what Khaled says in that first taped statement. What is your reaction to the reasons he gives?

Khaled states that the Palestinians “have no other way to fight,” having exhausted “all possible means to end [Israel’s] occupation, with political and peaceful means.”  To remain in an occupied territory – a land he believes is his and is being illegally absorbed by Israel – is to “accept inferiority,” to “disappear.” 

Who owns what is a big question that I cannot answer.  Israel was there first, so perhaps they can claim squatters’ rights.  But they did leave, others settled there, and it became primarily the land of Palestinians.  Maybe they are the ones with squatters’ rights.  Israelis returned, demanded their land back, and attempted to regain control.  As Said says in the film, how can the occupier play the victim?  Israel cannot have it both ways, believe the Palestinians.

My first reaction, after reading the course materials and watching the film up until the point of Khaled’s statement, is that he has a point.  Israel does not want to share the land; they desire to purge it of any mark of Palestine.  Living in an occupied state must feel like prison, and in fact, the film’s characters repeatedly refer to their awful existence under such conditions.  Said left the West Bank only once in his twenty-some years.  He can’t even travel from town to town without going through checkpoints.  It is no way to live, yet it is living. 

On the other hand, Palestine has not, as Khaled would have us believe, tried “all possible means” to end the occupation.  They have tried some means, and most of those involved force.  Suha argues for peaceful resistance, claiming that dying for the cause does no good for those left behind.  They not only have to continue the fight, they are punished for the “sacrifices” of their loved ones.  Khaled appears to refuse to disagree with her, but later in the film, he tries to convince Said as Suha tried to convince him. 

I do think that Khaled raised some valid issues with Israeli occupation, but I don’t think that they justify his planned act of terrorism.

Respond to the second clip and the debate between Khaled and Suha, which in many ways mirrors the debate over violent and non-violent struggle against oppression.

I’m trying to think of an instance in history where peaceful resistance met with lasting success, and I am at a loss.  There may be one, and my limited knowledge of world history undoubtedly proves my weakness on this issue.  But Khaled asks a valid question:  how can you win a moral war if your opponent has no morals?  Regardless of whether he is correct about Israel’s amorality, his perception is that he speaks the truth.  If you believe that your adversary will fight dirty no matter how clean you are, will you win?  Maybe, as a high school English teacher, I’ve been around teenagers too long, but I’ve yet to see Suha’s plan prove successful.  On the other hand, suicide bombers do not further the cause they represent, either.  What good do they do, other than feed their own egos to be martyrs and heroes?  They believe they will go to heaven; but what about those left behind on earth?  Suha tries to explain this to Khaled, noting that his bombing ultimately destroys his fellow Palestinians. 

I am left with the consideration that neither of them is correct.  Peaceful resistance doesn’t work, but neither do suicide bombings.  Diplomacy should be the answer, as proven by the small successes such as Carter’s peace accords between Begin and Sadat.

Do you agree more with the petition to have the film removed as an award nominee or with the counter-petition?What are you reasons for favoring one side over the other?

I do not agree with the petition to remove Paradise Now from award consideration.  The arguments for this are that Palestine is not a true state and that the film offers a too-sympathetic view of suicide bombers.

Regarding the first argument:  I don’t really care, to be blunt.  A film is a film, and we should not deny Paradise Now its due simply because there is debate over whether or not Palestine is its own country.  That argument, to me, is presented by cowards and cry babies who are looking for the teeniest loophole.  To them, I say, put on your big girl pants and get over it.

As for the argument that Paradise Now humanizes suicide bombers and, as such, offers a dangerous example of sympathy, I concur with Professor Jones, who said in an audio clip on his blog that it’s okay to humanize Khaled and Said because they are, after all, humans.  What is more important, Jones states, is to understand the context within which suicide bombers exist, and I think that the film presented that very well and very fairly.  Did I sympathize?  Yes.  Does it make me cheer on suicide bombers?  No.  In fact, I applauded Khaled and was angry with Said.  Khaled took the stronger, more difficult path, whereas Said, even in an act of martyrdom, took the weaker, easier one.