Post your review about the film that portrays Arafath and Sharon, here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Muqtedar Khan
- Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware.
7 comments:
Behind the Hatred….Mortal Enemies
Serge Schmemann, writing for the New York Times, won the 1991 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting for his coverage of the reunification of Germany. This background of researching cultural and political divisions prepared him to investigate the Arab-Israeli conflict. His subsequent Middle East investigative reporting provided the script for the 2003 Emmy Award winning Discovery Channel documentary Behind the Hatred : Mortal Enemies, which we viewed over two class sessions in mid-October. Additional background analysis was provided by former Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, and Yossi Alpher, a former senior official in Israel’s intelligence agency, Mossad.
The focus of this documentary are the two real-life mortal enemies, Palestinian Authority Chairman Yassar Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Spliced in throughout the documentary was newsreel footage which grippingly exposed the head-on clashes of these towering figures. To the probable dismay of partisan observers, Schmemann delivered an balanced assessment of the conflict by highlighting the uncensored actions of both sides, primarily through the lens of Arafat and Sharon.
Sharon is depicted as a brilliant and ruthless military tactician who never seems unready to battle Arabs, even when functioning in a political environment or while at his farm, the largest private farm in Israel. Sharon seems to be on a perpetual power trip, never quite able to disguise his hatred of Palestinians and his disregard for domestic rivals. Creating the state of Israel and then governing it involved ambition, betrayals and triumphs for Sharon, with a mirror life experience for Arafat. For Sharon, he never trusted Arafat, never shook his hands, never spoke to him.
Yassar Arafat is seen as a unifying figure for his people even when unification led to a long and violent history. As Sharon created Israel he systematically destroyed Palestinian infrastructures, killed Palestinian leaders, aggressively enabled the building of more settlements, and invoked humiliating checkpoints, establishing causes for Arafat to rally Arabs and Palestinians. Both men deftly negotiated parallel routes from war to political exile to diplomacy and back to war and confrontation.
Schmemann judiciously uses news and military footage and live interviews with survivors from both sides to trace historical events. The viewer is shown events and testimonials dating from from Israel's War of Independence in 1948 to the conflicts of 2002 The author/reporter’s dedication to peace is poignantly illustrated with his bitter coverage of the 1993 White House negotiations that almost brought peace to the region, only stopped by the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin who had managed a working relationship with Arafat, something Sharon could not or would not do. In fact, Sharon tried to block peace…as a hard-core military man he believed peace for Israel would be achieved by force and forcing Palestinians to accept Israeli terms.
Violence spun out of control…Hamas and Islamic Jihad used suicide bombers to respond to occupation, settlement and brutality. The documentary bounced around a bit in revealing historical personal glimpses into both protagonists lives, both whom had become larger than life. .
When Arafat was 30 he created Al Fatah…freedom fighters. PLO used terror/guerilla tactics to compensate for lack of military power compared to Israel. This inequality was dramatically emphasized by showing critical battle footage from the 1967 Six Day War, the defining moment of the Israeli-Arab conflict and one which left 1,000,000 Arabs under Israel control .The film continued with glimpses of the 1972 Munich Olympics tragic kidnapping/killing of Israeli athletes, the 1983 battle in southern Lebanon where the Israeli army occupied one-half of Lebanon and where Sharon was forced to resign as Defense Minister after he ordered a massacre that repulsed the Israeli public. Arafat seized on every brutal act of Israeli but was routed from Beirut while ironically gaining sympathy of much of the world .
Arafat ‘s part in the Intifada was highlighted, as was his return from exile in Tunis…Arafat is now considered theleader/spokesperson fort Palestine. Arafat’s presidency yielded little for his people as Israel maintained strict control, enabling HAMAS to challenge his domestic leadership while also attacking Israeli targets.
Each leader has united his people..but mostly in hatred and distrust. A sobering fact covered in the documentary was that HAMAS HAD KILLED LESS THAN 600 Israelis ( prior to 1994 there had been no suicide bombers) yet Israel in the same period had 6000 PALESTINIANS KILLED..
The documentary concluded with a hopeful note that support for peace in Israel is at minimum of 50%...most say give Palestinians peace and their land back. Taking in both sides accounts was emotionally draining and often confusing intellectually. I suspect peace is not a short-term gift with Sharon and Arafat lingering in the memories of their loyalists.
The movie “Behind the Hatred” describes the Arab-Israeli conflict by throwing the light on two charismatic leaders Ariel Sharon and Yaser Arafat and reveals their presence as symbols of their struggle for peace. Sharon was one of soldiers who contributed to establish their own country Israel. Since then, he had always fought in the front line as a capable general until 1972. Arafat was 19 when Israel was created in 1948. He also committed himself as a soldier to resistance movements against Israel. Known as hard working leaders, they represented their people and sometimes their anger and hatred by conducting military acts. After first Intifada in 1987, violence by Palestinians got out of Arafat’s hand, and he took a bold action for peace. In spite of his good relationship with Yitzhak Rabin, peacemaking effort reached a deadlock when Rabin was assassinated. His counterpart Sharon never believed him. Arafat who is in between the pressure from Israel to restrict violence by radical Palestinian groups and popularity of such groups could make no further step to peace. His inaction ends up strong suspicions between them as the Narrator says “When Arafat speaks peace, Israelis no longer believes him, while peace Sharon describes is not a peace Palestinians can buy.”
In spite of the fact that the PLO accepted Israel’s right to exist and renounced violence in 1988, the PLO’s loss of credibility and their distrust hindered tangible peace between them. The era that a few figures have strong mandates of their countries has ended. It seems impossible that a few leaders like these guys achieve peace agreement without people’s rational understanding. Today we can easily communicate each other and interact with those in office. Biased understanding of religious beliefs and government's propaganda make people exclusive and intolerant. Their peace does not depend on those like Sharon but solely on how far people can understand their counterpart as human beings.
Behind the Hatred: Mortal Enemies is a very insightful and well done assessment of two men that dedicated their lives to shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Serge Schmemann, writer for the New York Times delivers an evenhanded report of the lives of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Palestinian Authority’s chairman Yasir Arafat in an Emmy Award winning documentary. Through the use of archival footage and interviews Schmemann adds further intrigue and quality to his presentation.
This documentary helps the viewer to understand the conflict by delving into the lives of two of its main players. What is interesting about assessing the lives of Sharon and Arafat, two men who dedicated their lives to destroying the other, is that it allows the viewer to see how much their lives were interwoven. The actions they took throughout their lives were very much dependent on those of the other. Sharon and Arafat were destined to be mortal enemies. From their births a year apart until their deaths only two years apart, one sees an almost mirror image of the two soldiers and leaders. The film points out that both leaders in their hatred for the other and desire to reach their respective goals resorted to violence, neither in a more honorable way than the other. Israelis viewed Sharon as the only counterforce to Arafat’s PLO, which was demonstrated when he was elected prime minister after the second Intifada. The same can be said for how the Palestinian people viewed Arafat. This film goes through the different wars and conflicts and shows that even though they fought on different sides both Sharon and Arafat always showed the same ruthlessness and dedication that made their legacy.
One thing I thought was interesting that was mentioned in the documentary was that Arafat wanted his fellow Palestinians to think he was also born in Palestine, yet he was born in Egypt to Palestinian parents. Another note, and something I had noticed and talked to Israeli’s about while Sharon was Prime Minister, is that Sharon, even though he claimed he was dedicated to peace, was surely not. Sharon was first of all dedicated to the security of Israelis. This is not to say that this made Arafat the more peace minded of the two- even though he participated in peace negotiations, a major step for a Palestinian player, he also headed the Fatah movement which dedicates itself to the liberation of Palestine by an armed struggle.
I appreciated this documentary and am glad we had a chance to view it in class. I think that Sharon and Arafat are two very interesting personalities and learning more about them lends a lot to the understanding of what is currently going on in the conflict. These two men, in their struggle against each other and for their respective causes, shaped the conflict we know today.
Behind The Hatred directed and produced by, C. Scott Willis takes a look into the lives of two nemesis Ariel Sharon and Yassar Arafat from the 48 war into the millennium wrenched with war, possibilities of peace and conflict again coupled with terrorist attacks, intifadas and ruthless military strikes on Palestinian neighborhoods. As I watched the demise of the Palestinian country in 1948, Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon were both in their respective battleground places. In the seventies Yassar Arafat conducted and advocated guerilla warfare to fight back the ensuing military strong arm of the Israeli IDF. He orchestrated attacks in ways that would provide fear, terrorism. This included hijacking of planes, bombing them, Munich attacks, and at this time, Sharon responded with brute force into Lebanon destroying and decimating all the buildings where many civilians died. The world looked at him and soon his popularity was down and asked to resign. He was wrong and the world let him know.
While Arafat lived in Lebanon and the Africa he came back to Palestine in 1997 40 years after the 6 day war and because of the uprising that was taking place with Hamas and suicide bombings, he came back and he did the unthinkable. He accepted Israel’s right to exist and denounce all forms of terrorism. So seen as statesmen he could now be apart of the peace process.
When Hamas still did suicide bombings, the average Palestinians felt helpless as they were losing trust with Arafat after all Hamas helped the Palestinian communities with social programs. This also allowed Sharon now to be voted in as Prime minister as the Israelis felt distrust for the other and Sharon would do something about it. Arafat could not do much and did nothing to stop them. Ariel Sharon made it know that Arafat was a terrorist who allowed these suicide campaigns against Israel to take place. So, Sharon bombs Arafat and all of his quarters.
Sharon a ruthless military strategist who all Palestinians thought of a man that would not want peace as he wanted to keep building settlements, put barb wire fencing up around Palestinian towns and Jerusalem was going to be a Jewish capital with no negotiation. He in my opinion was a cause of many of the problems and violence that has occurred from the Palestinians. He is a dictator to the Palestinians holing them up for the sake of security. Many civilians died because of him. Ariel Sharon says Arafat has the blood of more Jews on his hands than a Nazi criminal. What does one do when a people get beat down so much they fight even if resorts to despicable acts of terror to attempt to restore balance. However, what about Ariel Sharon, he has the blood of Palestinians on his hands as well.
The one thing I can say about the later years for them is Yassar Arafat accepted Israel’s right to exist, and denounced terrorism while Ariel Sharon brokered peace for Israel not Palestine. One thinks they are superior to the other. The other finds great rewards with defeat, overtime Sharon attacked Arafat, he just become more vibrant that the siege will end but during the siege eventually outcome of change will take place. In 2007, June Hamas was elected as Palestine’s Authority.
I found Behind the Hatred to be perhaps the most interesting and the most telling of the films we watched in class. The film seemed to pit the suicide bombings from the Palestinians against the Israeli army terror in the region and ask the viewer to decide which was worse. I walked away from this movie with the idea that the perpetuation of violence in the Arab-Israeli conflict is coming from both sides and that both Palestinian leaders and Israeli leaders are to blame for the failed attempts at peace. Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon are both so committed to, and instrumental to, the creation of the identity of their people that it clouds their potential for compromising in the name of peace. The film discusses Sharon’s belief in the use of force to win security and peace and his utter lack of trust in the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people. Arafat was just resistant enough during the 2000 Camp David negotiations to give Sharon a sense of legitimacy in using force; he was able to frame the Palestinians as being responsible for the breakdown in peace. Also, after the second intifada in 2000, Israelis wanted punishment, not peace, which led to Sharon’s election as a hardline leader. Sharon not only opposed peace but actively worked against it, constructing strategically places settlements in the occupied territories.
What I found most interesting about this movie was the idea that the same set of facts, the same events on the ground, led to the creation of two entirely different ideologies that seemed to be mutually exclusive. The theory of relativism discusses this phenomenon, that people view facts through the lense of their already held beliefs, and I think this conflict is a perfect example of that theory. Not only is it hard for leaders to step back and try to make compromises, but leaders have publics to answer to, and Sharon and Arafat seem to have little faith in their publics being able to accept certain compromises. One major difference that I saw between the two leaders was the extent to which their actions were determined by their own beliefs versus the way they want their publics to perceive them. It seemed to me that Sharon genuinely believed that Israel has the right to simply blame the Palestinians for the current situation and continue to build on their land. Arafat, probably because he is at such a disadvantaged position, seemed to be ready to make compromises for peace. But he was not ready to be the person to go back and tell his people that he had given up certain things in the pursuit of peace. Both leaders lived through the creation of Israel and were brought up with opposite ideologies regarding the situation. I don’t think that is something that can be overcome. I think that it will take a new generation of negotiators to reach peace in the region.
"Behind the Hatred: Mortal Enemies" was a fascinating study of two central players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat. The movies delved deep into the past and personal lives of these two men, helping viewers understand better the motivations behind their actions.
"Behind the Hatred" is unbiased and really lets the viewer decide for themselves how effective the men were as leaders. The film begins describing Arafat, the "symbol of modern Palestine" as the person who sparked Palestinian nationalism. A n incredibly powerful personality in the conflict, the movie states "Arafat is Palestinian history". Ariel Sharon, Arafat's "mortal enemy" according to the movie, is described as a right-wing, fundamental Zionist, who refuses to shake hands with Arafat. These juxtaposed descriptions complete with dramatic imagery makes for an powerful beginning to the film.
What struck me as a central theme throughout the movie was the men's opportunities to make peace, and the subsequent failures. The movie shows well the pressure Arafat faces from a variety of parties. For example, it describes how making the compromises asked of him at Camp David, would have been "signing his death warrant" even if he had wanted to.
From this point on, however, the blame seems to fall on Ariel Sharon, and one cannot help wonder what might have happened had Yitzhak Rabin not been assasinated. Sharon's visit to the Temple of the Mount, as portrayed in the movie, clearly causes a great deal of anger among the Palestinians. Though the movie is good at remaining unbiased, it leaves room for inference, and my inference is that Sharon did this on purpose. I think he wanted to provoke Palestinians to violence so that he could use excessive force against them. If this was his motive, it worked, as the movie then goes on to describe the escalation in violence against the Israelis after Sharon's visit to the Temple of the Mount, and subsequent counter-violence from the Israelis.
The movie also states that Sharon's "style" is to go too far, and notes that massive protests forced him to resign as chief of the IDF.
Sharon's "style" turns out to be something Arafat is able to turn into something positive for the Palestinian cause. He uses Palestinian losses to gather sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Though initially a strong leader, the movie does a good job describing Arafat's gradual loss of power as Hamas begins to step into Palestinian life. They describe his inability to stop violence against the Israelis even after he renounces terrorism and accepts Israel's right to exist. It is actually kind of sad to watch the aging Arafat pulled in different directions by the Americans and his people who become tired of his inability to make change in their lives.
For me, the most important thing about this movie was that it HUMANIZED the conflict. I enjoyed learning more about Yasser Arafat, who after watching this movie I think deserves more recognition for bringing the Palestinian plight to the national stage. Before watching this movie I had an uninformed somewhat demonized image of him in my mind, despite the fact that he is a Nobel Peace Prize winner. I think other Americans might want to watch this movie to better understand his role,(especially when Rachel Ray wearing a scarf that sort of resembles his causes enough of an outcry that an ad showing it has to be pulled in the US!) I know its mostly conservative bloggers that blew the ad out of proportion, but still, I know I did not have all my facts straight on Arafat either before seeing this movie.
As for Sharon, the movie shows him walking among the fruit trees near his home,and describing his early life in Kfar Malal. His early involvement in the military in Israel's founding years helps explain his motivations and passion in the conflict.
In all, a great movie about two powerful men with powerful convictions. A must see for students of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Behind the Hatred: Mortal Enemies
I feel that there is so much to discuss about this documentary. All in all, all of the documentaries shown in class have been extraordinarily profound, complex, and thought-provoking. Behind the Hatred: Mortal Enemies showed how each of these two men dedicated their life to the destruction of the other’s and how this affected the Arab-Israeli conflict as we know it.
There were two topics presented in this documentary that I would like to discuss: the term “terrorism” and how important public identities are.
Terrorism
The actual figures presented in the documentary were eye-opening. According to the US Department of State, Hamas is listed as a terrorist organization, but once given the figures, one starts to question the definition of “terrorist organization.” Before 1994, there weren’t any suicide bombers, and, since then, Hamas has killed less than 600 Israelis, but, in that same time frame, Israel has killed over 6,000 Palestinians. The more powerful actor in this dynamic has committed 10% more killing. The weaker opponent is listed as a terrorist organization, but the stronger opponent doesn’t even receive a label of “aggressor.”
The Importance of the Persona
Both Arafat and Sharon display strong and dominant personalities in this documentary, and the public images that they craft for themselves play a major role in the negotiations, as your public persona delimits your actions as a public figure.
Yassr Arafat created a persona for himself early in his life. He crafted Yassr Arafat as a man born in Palestine, and thus one who could easily relate and identify with the Palestinian people. In truth, Yassr Arafat was born in Egypt to Palestinian parents.
As for Sharon, the persona that he crafted was one of peace. Sharon praised himself on this, although he could barely contain or hide his disdain for the Palestinians. For example, when talks with Yassr Arafat and Barak seemed to be going somewhere in the right direction, Sharon, to send the point home to the Palestinians that there would be no concessions, scheduled a walk around the captured Palestinian holy sites. But nonetheless, even Bush 43, after publicly condemning Israel’s expansionary settling of Palestinian lands, apologized by calling Sharon a “man of peace,” exemplifying how influential public personas can be.
Post a Comment