Paradise Now? Eventually? Never?
‘What should I do?’ ‘What should I do about the Israeli occupiers who took away everything from me?’ ‘Will blowing myself up persuade them to leave?’ ‘Is there another way – forcefully or by reconciliation – which would bring back what is rightfully mine?’
Said and Khaled are two young Palestinian men in their late 20s/early 30s. They are also the protagonists of Paradise Now, the first Palestinian film to be nominated for an academy award. Subsistence living gets them through their quotidian life in whichever way possible. They live during a time of occupation, a time which has infringed upon their rights as human beings, a time which has destroyed their dignity and a time which has stolen their souls.
Palestinians do not have many choices. Hearing the experiences of many people in Gaza and the West Bank as well as those of candid observers is utterly disheartening. Said and Khaled are the sine qua non of Palestinian youth, bitter yet smiling, apprehensive yet human at heart, revenge-greedy yet seeking a solution. They symbolize the Palestinian struggle and its seemingly never-ending fate. The schizophrenic dichotomies aforementioned are portrayed with immense precision in the film. Without doubt, the Palestinian people are classified as Third World (if not lower) and share characteristics similar to that of many poverty-stricken African countries. Moreover, they have incredibly high birth rates and death rates which has attributed to the progressive decrease in the average age of the population. Thus, the future of the Palestinian people falls directly in the hands of its youth, in the fate of those like Khaled and Said.
In light of the recent tensions between the militant factions of Fatah and Hamas, writing a reflection on the movie at this point is pertaining since it represents both struggles: that between the Israelis and Palestinians and that between different niches (on a political and social level) among Palestinian society.
The film did an incredible job at discussing the morality behind undertaking suicide missions. If I blow myself up, will Angels really come down and take me straight to heaven? Will I die a martyr in the eyes of God? What will really happen? These are questions which were touched upon in the movie, forcing the audience to contemplate just like both Said and Khaled did. Director Hany Abu-Assad was very successful in transposing the clashes, the reluctance as well as the religious zeal which occurred in both Khaled and Said’s minds. These polarities were primarily depicted via the conduit of the movie’s screenplay. However, the normality of the numerous poignant conversations as well as the contemplations portrayed through the protagonists’ body language also served the same purpose.
My criticism of the movie falls on the one significant facet of the plot. Towards the end of the film, Khaled decided to undertake the mission while Said opted out believing that there was another way to ultimately solve the problem. At the start of the film, it was vice versa, Khaled was initially reluctant to commit ‘martyrdom’ but his opinions were morphed once he started to remember how his father betrayed his people and collaborated with the Israelis. Although Abu-Assad wanted to integrate the internal struggles which plagued the minds of young Palestinians, it seemed that Khaled’s decision to follow through with the mission was purely for rectification purposes. He wanted to undo what his father had done, he sought to remove any vendettas and grudges which might have been held against him (since he is his father’s son). In essence, this completely detracted away from his preliminary reason of undertaking the mission; out of desperation, lack of choice and helplessness. These reasons are the quintessential ‘thought rationale’ which the Western world (especially the Israelis) need to comprehend.
In my opinion, Paradise Now addressed many questions for non-Muslims viewers with regards to the specificities of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Nonetheless, there remains a continued brewing of debate among Muslims as to whether the suicide missions in Palestine are ‘eligible’ for martyrdom in the eyes of God. It was certainly not the scope of the movie to ‘solve’ or provide interpretations on that issue. Regardless, the crux of the film is about humanity and morality – two fundamental factors which governments/persons of influence and heads of state have started to overlook in many struggles around the world.
Said and Khaled are two young Palestinian men in their late 20s/early 30s. They are also the protagonists of Paradise Now, the first Palestinian film to be nominated for an academy award. Subsistence living gets them through their quotidian life in whichever way possible. They live during a time of occupation, a time which has infringed upon their rights as human beings, a time which has destroyed their dignity and a time which has stolen their souls.
Palestinians do not have many choices. Hearing the experiences of many people in Gaza and the West Bank as well as those of candid observers is utterly disheartening. Said and Khaled are the sine qua non of Palestinian youth, bitter yet smiling, apprehensive yet human at heart, revenge-greedy yet seeking a solution. They symbolize the Palestinian struggle and its seemingly never-ending fate. The schizophrenic dichotomies aforementioned are portrayed with immense precision in the film. Without doubt, the Palestinian people are classified as Third World (if not lower) and share characteristics similar to that of many poverty-stricken African countries. Moreover, they have incredibly high birth rates and death rates which has attributed to the progressive decrease in the average age of the population. Thus, the future of the Palestinian people falls directly in the hands of its youth, in the fate of those like Khaled and Said.
In light of the recent tensions between the militant factions of Fatah and Hamas, writing a reflection on the movie at this point is pertaining since it represents both struggles: that between the Israelis and Palestinians and that between different niches (on a political and social level) among Palestinian society.
The film did an incredible job at discussing the morality behind undertaking suicide missions. If I blow myself up, will Angels really come down and take me straight to heaven? Will I die a martyr in the eyes of God? What will really happen? These are questions which were touched upon in the movie, forcing the audience to contemplate just like both Said and Khaled did. Director Hany Abu-Assad was very successful in transposing the clashes, the reluctance as well as the religious zeal which occurred in both Khaled and Said’s minds. These polarities were primarily depicted via the conduit of the movie’s screenplay. However, the normality of the numerous poignant conversations as well as the contemplations portrayed through the protagonists’ body language also served the same purpose.
My criticism of the movie falls on the one significant facet of the plot. Towards the end of the film, Khaled decided to undertake the mission while Said opted out believing that there was another way to ultimately solve the problem. At the start of the film, it was vice versa, Khaled was initially reluctant to commit ‘martyrdom’ but his opinions were morphed once he started to remember how his father betrayed his people and collaborated with the Israelis. Although Abu-Assad wanted to integrate the internal struggles which plagued the minds of young Palestinians, it seemed that Khaled’s decision to follow through with the mission was purely for rectification purposes. He wanted to undo what his father had done, he sought to remove any vendettas and grudges which might have been held against him (since he is his father’s son). In essence, this completely detracted away from his preliminary reason of undertaking the mission; out of desperation, lack of choice and helplessness. These reasons are the quintessential ‘thought rationale’ which the Western world (especially the Israelis) need to comprehend.
In my opinion, Paradise Now addressed many questions for non-Muslims viewers with regards to the specificities of the Palestinian-Israeli problem. Nonetheless, there remains a continued brewing of debate among Muslims as to whether the suicide missions in Palestine are ‘eligible’ for martyrdom in the eyes of God. It was certainly not the scope of the movie to ‘solve’ or provide interpretations on that issue. Regardless, the crux of the film is about humanity and morality – two fundamental factors which governments/persons of influence and heads of state have started to overlook in many struggles around the world.
posted by The Egyptian Observer at 2:45 PM
8 Comments:
Regardless, the crux of the film is about humanity and morality – two fundamental factors which governments/persons of influence and heads of state have started to overlook in many struggles around the world.
In full agreement. This is really what the film is about. Some people who watched it complained that it did not show the brutality of Israeli occupation, as they had expected it. I would say this is a film, not a documentary. This is art, and you must read in between the lines, so to speak. If the film had focused more on the abuses of Israeli occupation, I doubt it would have been nominated for the Oscars. The director did a great job at bringing Khaled and Said's feelings and thoughts to the viewer, in a way that is even more powerful than some documentaries.
@beast from the middle east. There is no doubt that there has been Egyptian-Palestinian tensions in the past and apparently some of the perpetrators of the recent Dahab bombings had crossed the border from Gaza.
However, Palestinians which have foolishly targeted Egypt are an utter minority. Also, Israel has turned a blind eye to many systematic killings such as those undertaken by Ariel Sharon during the 1980s in Sabre and Chatilla. Like the US, Israel is not a true protagonist of human rights. This does not mean Hamas and Islamic Jihad are any better, but one should go back to the roots of the problem - those organizations won't care less since their land was taken from them in 1948 - period.
Egypt has definitely aided Palestine immensely and the Palestinians owe the Egyptians a great deal of gratitude. In my opinion, the recent implication of Palestinians in the Dahab bombings probably stemmed from Mubarak's refusal to meet with Hamas leaders. Mubarak as I've discussed in many of my posts is stuck in a rather complicated position - on the one hand, trying to appease the US and Israel but at the same time Arab at heart and wanting to help the Palestinian cause.
Neither the US nor Israel are true democracies. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are not any better of course however one can objectively comprehend the situation.
I am Palestinan/Egyptian and as you can see it is a rather peculiar position to be in given our discussion however I greatly sympathize with the Palestinian cause.
@moi. I completely agree with you. I was not looking for a movie which would show me the brutality of the Israeli occupation. In essence, countries, governments and people are very split on the the whole situation and thus it is more powerful to show them why some people decide to undertake suicide attacks instead of negotiating.
The movie was thought provoking, opinion swaying and very realistic. A much needed chef d'oeuvre.
"Also, Israel has turned a blind eye to many systematic killings such as those undertaken by Ariel Sharon during the 1980s in Sabre and Chatilla."
You mean undertaken by Elie Hobeika, not Ariel Sharon. Sharon was nowhere near the camp and wasn't even in the army at the time. I believe he had to resign from the government because he failed to predict and stop the massacre.
Israel could not do much about Elie though, because he defected to the Syrians after the massacre.
It is perhaps a minor point that Elie Hobeika was a Maronite Arab, not an Israeli or Jew.
"Neither the US nor Israel are true democracies."
It depends on what you mean by "true democracy".
It is true that both countries have specific laws that stop democracy from eliminating the rights of minorities.
@andrew brehm. You are correct, it was Elie Hobeika who was directly implicated however Sharon was still found to be personally but not directly responsible. As you've said, he eventually resigned as Defense Minister after 400,000 Israelis took to the street in protest and asking him to resign. http://www.indictsharon.net/
In essence, my point was to show that the Arabs, Israelis and Americans have had their fair share of hypocrisy. Thus using human rights as an excuse to be involved in the Middle East is completely flawed.
@andrew brehm. By true democracy, I mean a country which does not hold double standards with regards to BOTH its foreign and domestic policy.
The US might use human rights as an excuse to intervene in the Middle East yet they are very 'close friends' of Saudi Arabia (who is one of the largest human rights perpetrators in the world). The US and Israel obviously have a very mutual relationship as well and Israel has had its fair share of human rights abuses (i.e. the whole occupation, the wall etc. etc.).
Certain things for the US and Israel (oil for the former and security for the latter) trump all moral standards. In another recent post of mine, I argued the true importance of oil for the US and how it would take massive strides in order to security a supply (no matter how it would be perceived by other world countries). Double standard or not, both countries would subside morality to fulfill their self-interests.
"In essence, my point was to show that the Arabs, Israelis and Americans have had their fair share of hypocrisy."
I don't get it. Ariel Sharon was held personally responsible (for failing to stop the massacre committed by somebody else), Israelis demonstrated, he was punished.
Where is the hypocrisy?
"By true democracy, I mean a country which does not hold double standards with regards to BOTH its foreign and domestic policy."
Wouldn't a true democracy hold all the double standards its voting population wanted it to hold?
"The US might use human rights as an excuse to intervene in the Middle East yet they are very 'close friends' of Saudi Arabia (who is one of the largest human rights perpetrators in the world). The US and Israel obviously have a very mutual relationship as well and Israel has had its fair share of human rights abuses (i.e. the whole occupation, the wall etc. etc.)."
You are right about the US using human rights as an excuse. But as an excuse for what? The oil of Iraq is simply not worth as much as the war already cost. And as for the friendship between the US and Saudi Arabia, I share your sentiments completely!
Israel's human rights abuses are a different subject. Many things are considered "human rights abuses" when comitted by Israel while the same acts would be considered completely legal when comitted by any other country.
Occupation of an enemy country is, for example, completely legal and not a human rights abuse; unless Israel does it.
And building a defence wall in occupied territory during a war is also completely legal and was never questioned; until Israel did it.
If you want me to comment on Israel's human rights abuses, you will have to find one that is independent of the characteristics of the perpetrator/Israel. But if Israel does something which is usually considered completely legal but suddenly becomes a human rights abuse when Israel does it, I don't see a human rights abuse, I see anti-Semitism.
Post a Comment
<< Home