Skip to Content

Share

Richard Falk: Uncovering Occupied Palestine

February 7, 2014

Life under occupation in Hany Alu-Assad's Omar.

https://www.guernicamag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/4565875919_9af865420e_z.jpg
Image from Flickr via dan_hulutz

By Richard Falk
By arrangement with Richard Falk

Omar is the second film directed by Hany Alu-Assad to be a finalist among foreign language films nominated to receive an Oscar at the 2014 Academy Awards ceremony on March 2nd. The earlier film, Paradise Now (2005), brought to life the preoccupation at the time with suicide bombing as the principle tactic of Palestinian resistance by exposing the deep inner conflicts of those who partake, the tragic effects of such terror on its Israeli targets, and the hardened manipulative mentality of the leaders who prepare the perpetrators.

Alu-Assad born in 1961 in Nazareth, emigrated to the Netherlands in 1980, writes the screen plays for his movies as well as directs. He has a profound gift for story telling that keeps an audience engaged with the human drama affecting the principal Palestinian characters while illuminating broader issues of profound moral and political concern without stooping to didactic means of conveying “the message.” So understood, Alu-Assad’s achievement is artistic in the primary sense, yet attunes us to the dilemmas of oppression and servitude.

In these respects Omar is superior even to Paradise Now, telling the story of what life under Israeli occupation means for the way Palestinian lives are lived, the normalcies of romantic attraction contrasting with the abnormalities of humiliating lives lived behind prison walls. The film opens with Omar climbing the high domineering security wall to overcome the separation of Arab families living on either side, being detected by the Israeli guards who sound sirens and fire a shot. Omar manages to clamor back down and leap to safety. Israeli police on foot and in cars pursue Omar through the alleyways and streets of an impoverished Palestinian neighborhood. The underlying poignancy of Omar’s situation is to be at once “a freedom fighter” and a sensitive young man deeply in love with Nadia, the younger sister of Tarek, his militia commander. In an unspoken realism, Omar is unconditionally bound to both causes, jeopardizing his chance to live a shadow life of acquiescence to the realities of occupation by his choice to dedicate himself at great risk and little hope to the liberation of the Palestinian people and their land.

What emerges most vividly as the story unfolds is the dehumanizing effects of prolonged occupation.

The wall reinforced by the Israeli security forces, portrayed as cunning and unscrupulous, with an occupiers’ fear and loathing for those who cower under the rigors of occupation, provides an unforgettable visual metaphor that captures the daily ordeal of the Palestinian people. In a subtle touch, the rope used by Omar throughout the film to avoid the checkpoints and overcome the separation of his home from that of Tarek and Nadia also conveys an understanding that the wall is much more about humiliation and land than it is about security. The rope remains untouched during the entirety of the film, although its presence and illegal use must have been obvious to the Israeli occupation forces that never bother to remove it.

What emerges most vividly as the story unfolds is the dehumanizing effects of prolonged occupation. Omar and Nadia have charm and humor to give their love for another an unforgettable credibility that is brought to life by their awareness of what it means to live without the right to travel beyond the wall. They talk in the language of fantasy about where to go on their honeymoon: he proposes Mozambique, she counters with Bangla Desh, and then more truly, admits that Paris is her dream, while they both fully realize that they will never get the opportunity to get beyond the dingy confines of the West Bank. Nadia’s biggest trip outside of her immediate neighborhood was a visit to Hebron, the tensest, most humiliated city in occupied Palestine, notorious for daily settler violence against the large resident Palestinian community.

The film conveys better than any book the interactive intimacies of occupier and occupied. The Israeli lead security agent, Rami, calls his mother to ask her to pick up his daughter from school, and when she asks why he can’t do it, he responds, “I am stuck in the middle of the fucking West Bank.” Yet the most abiding realization is the horrible dehumanizing effects of this mixture of fear and hatred in contexts of unspeakable inequality, with total control seemingly on one side, and complete vulnerability on the other side. The torture scenes, like the wall, are both horrible in their own enactment, but also metaphors of what it means to live your entire life within master/slave structures of relationship.

Omar is portrayed in a fascinating manner because he succumbs, and yet in the end he doesn’t succumb.

The reality of Palestinian violent resistance has two important consequences even though it seems currently futile from the perspective of challenging the occupation in any way that promises to liberation: it gives dignity to Palestinians who seem united in their will to live-unto-death despite their defenselessness and it makes Israelis vulnerable despite their seeming total control of the situation as a result of their weaponry, police, surveillance technology, and arrogant sense of racial superiority. In effect, the desperate slave when life is deprived of all personal meaning can sacrifice himself in a symbolic act of vengeance, and inflict pain and loss on the master. Seen from an Israeli perspective, there is no way to achieve total security (this side of total genocide) no matter how clever, sophisticated, and oppressive the systems of control put in place. Technology is incapable of doing the whole job, and for this reason, human fallibility always produces some sort of payback from the incompletely vanquished subjugated population.

For this reason, from the Palestinian side, nothing is worse that becoming a collaborator, and yet only a hero among heroes, would have the super-human capacity to avoid such a fate given the brutality used by Israelis to acquire the information they need to enforce their will on a hostile population. For the occupier recruiting collaborators is a vital part of improving security; for the occupied, it is the final humiliation, making the fate of the traitor far worse than that of the slave. Omar is portrayed in a fascinating manner because he succumbs, and yet in the end he doesn’t succumb. Amjad, his friend collaborates with the Israelis to steal Omar away from Nadia, with the biopolitical insight that romantic longings may take lethal precedence over political loyalty and lifelong friendship. In this respect, the power of love is greater than the power of power. The film also is faithful to the traditional social norms that bind Palestinians to family relations in ways that also enslave, including the total disempowerment of women. Nadia is portrayed as strong in her dual attachments to love and resistance, and yet is deprived by Palestinian norms of freedom in relation to her body and choice of partner. In this sense, Nadia is doubly occupied.

The actual Israeli prison that is depicted in the film is a prison within a prison, that is, a walled enclave that exists within a walled country.

Omar makes no effort to depict the larger issues of resistance tactics, to portray some vision of a realizable peace, or to bring into play the behavior of politicians, the UN, the international community. Such considerations are ignored, and seem irrelevant to the forces that impact daily on Palestinian lives. It takes the present as a seemingly permanent given, in effect, a society of prisoners sentenced for life with no hope for parole or escape. So understood, the actual Israeli prison that is depicted in the film is a prison within a prison, that is, a walled enclave that exists within a walled country.

The great achievement of Hany Alu-Assad in this film is to make you feel and think, and maybe hopefully act. I left the theater with the overriding sense that the continuation of this occupation is intolerable for both sides, that it dehumanizes Israelis as much as it does Palestinians, two peoples caught in a vicious circle of subjugation and resistance. But not equally so caught as the masters live life in more satisfying ways than the slaves, at least for now, at least until the walls come tumbling down.

Richard Falk is an international law and international relations scholar who taught at Princeton University for forty years. Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

Readers like you make Guernica possible. Please show your support.

Tagged with:

Share on FacebookShare on TwitterAdd to BufferShare on LinkedInShare on TumblrSubmit to StumbleUpon
Submit to redditShare on App.netShare via email

You might also like

One comment for Richard Falk: Uncovering Occupied Palestine

  1. Comment by Fred Skolnik on February 8, 2014 at 4:28 pm

    A film depicting the Allied occupation of Germany could very easily be built around a German Omar who is hounded and harassed for his Nazi connections and in love with a fetching German mädchen. Such a film would of course neglect to mention the fact that Germany was occupied because it started and lost a war and that Nazis were pursued because of their brutal crimes. This is the film that Hany Alu-Assad has made and this is the idea of the Arab-Israel conflict that Prof. Falk and an assortment of Israel haters eagerly buy into and try to sell. The “total control seemingly on one side, and complete vulnerability on the other side,” that Falk bewails is precisely what you get when you start and lose a war. The winning side is in control and the losing side is controlled. What exactly does Falk expect? I will not go on and on about this because I have commented here often enough about the shameless fictions that Israel haters are propagating. I will only add, marginally, as someone who served on active reserve duty in the Israeli army for nearly 20 years, patrolled Arab streets, pursued Arab terrorists, searched Arab homes and arrested Arab suspects, that the experience of occupation has in no way “dehumanized” Israel and Israelis. That may seem to be a logical conclusion for someone who thinks like Prof. Falk, but he is of course not equipped to test it, being ignorant of the Hebrew language and the Israeli experience, just as he is not equipped to turn out Gaza reports as he periodically does, also being ignorant of the Arabic language and how Hamas really operates in Gaza. But Prof. Falk is not interested in getting at the truth of anything, he is only interested in vilifying Israel; and I suspect too that he is not interested in the Palestinians as victims but only in Israel (and America) as culprits. Remove them from the equation and I think his ceaseless “advocacy” will vanish too, just as it is nowhere to be seen in dozens of conflicts around the world where populations are being oppressed and even massacred every other day. I will state this quite clearly: If Israel was not Jewish, it wouldn’t be hated. If Israel was an Arab country and the Palestinians were non-Muslim Sudanese, let us say, and you had the same conflict and the same occupation and the same “ethnic cleansing,” barely an eyebrow would be raised and certainly Prof. Falk would not be churning out dozens of blogs vilifying Sudan and attracting comments from an army of worshipful admirers.

Leave a comment




Anti-Spam Quiz:

Subscribe without commenting