 |
Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2008, page 57 Music & Arts Film Tackles Struggles of Bereaved Parents of Israel-Palestine Conflict
THE MAIN THEME of “To Die in Jerusalem,” shown Dec. 9 as part of the Washington Jewish Film Festival, is the suffering and turmoil associated with losing a child in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Following the screening, director Hilla Medalia, and the Washington Report’s Jamal Najjab discussed her film, in which Medalia documents the parents of two girls, one Israeli and one Palestinian, who lost their lives in the conflict. On March 29, 2002, 17-year-old Israeli Rachel Levy walked into a grocery store in Kiryat Yovel, Jerusalem to buy food for sabbath dinner. At the same time, 17-year-old Palestinian Ayat al-Akhras approached the store with a purse full of explosives. Both girls, who looked remarkably similar—and, as the film later shows, had many personal similarities—died as a result of the bombing. “To Die in Jerusalem” opens with Avigail Levy, Rachel’s mother, getting in touch with the Bereaved Parents Forum, which allows parents on both sides of the conflict to contact each other for discussion and healing. Levy declares that she wants to meet the mother of Ayat al-Akhras to better understand why her own daughter died and why Ayat would commit a suicide bombing. Much of the film deals with the difficult process of trying to arrange for the mothers to meet. Although the two families’ homes are less than 10 miles apart, they are separated by checkpoints, the Israeli separation wall, and an invisible barrier of fear and mistrust. The film does a good job of accurately portraying the range and complexity of emotions both mothers feel regarding the loss of their daughters. Grieving over Rachel’s death, Avigail cannot accept that anything would justify Ayat’s actions. Ayat’s mother, Umm Samir, also is grieving, but would never accept that Ayat died for an unworthy cause. In the end, Avigail and Um Samir are only able to meet through video-conferencing, but their discussion turns into a heated shouting match. Avigail tries to push Umm Samir to forget about the Israeli occupation (which she calls “politics”) and publicly join her in denouncing Ayat’s action and those of other suicide bombers. But Umm Samir refuses to do so, with the simple argument that their life in the refugee camp is a living hell that Avigail cannot comprehend. During the post-film discussion, Medalia said, “Even though both parents remained stubborn in their positions, I believe that a discussion like that in the film does provide an opening for continued dialogue and a positive change.” Commenting on Avigail’s statement to Um Samir, Najjab argued that for Umm Samir to forget about the Israeli occupation and publicly condemn Ayat’s action would be like saying her daughter died in vain. “That would be just as impossible for her to do as it would be for any American mother to view her child’s death while serving in Iraq as dying in vain,” Najjab pointed out. He attempted to explain to the mostly Jewish audience that “For Rachel’s mother to ask Ayat’s mother to so carelessly forget the occupation, which is an every day part of her and her neighbors’ lives, is like saying to someone in the Jewish community, ‘Oh the Holocaust, that’s ancient history,’” Najjab said. “It’s impossible.” After the discussion, Najjab said he was approached by two Israeli women who told him it was not wise to compare the occupation with the Holocaust. When Najjab explained that he did not in fact compare the two, the two women responded that if anyone wants to get their message through to the Jewish community, they can’t even use the two words in the same sentence. Although he was somewhat taken aback by their comments, Najjab said, he nevertheless found the advice helpful. In the end, he reflected, “My main reason for being there was to reach out to the other side so that they better understand the plight of Palestinians, and I believe this film and our discussion afterward contributed to that goal.” —Basem Awad |
|||||
