Paradise Now

Paradise Now is a beautiful and moving film that is far from being a piece of pro-terrorist propaganda as the petition against its Oscar nomination implies. I strongly disagree with the petition’s claims that the film is an attempt to “explain away the actions behind mass-murderers” and that the film glorifies mass-murder and will incite more murders. The petition is based upon Yossi Zur’s interpretation of the film which is included in the petition. Zur is an Israeli whose son was murdered on a bus by a suicide bomber. Zur’s inaccurate summary of the film, in which he relates that the film ends when they get on a bus full of children and blow it up, suggests that he is thinking of his own loss not evaluating what he saw in the film. By writing “they” he ignores the most significant part of the film, that the men make different decisions. He cannot deal with this aspect of the film because he cannot acknowledge the Palestinian men as individuals. Zur argues that murders are not human and do not doubt. I don’t think Zur’s real issue with the film is mass-murder. I think he is uncomfortable with the humanizing of his enemy.

This becomes clear when he states, "That the Israelis are to blame for this brutal killing? Are the Israelis to blame for the Twin Towers in New York, the night club in Indonesia, the hotel in Egypt, the shop in Turkey, the restaurant in Morocco or in Tunis, the hotel in Jordan, the underground in London, the train in Spain? And the list goes on and on." Here he is grouping together several different terrorist atrocities as though they were all committed by the same group. This statement essentially says that all Arab terrorism is the same. Zur completely denies that this film is about the Palestinian movement and the relationship between Palestine and Israel.

While I agree with the counter-petition that Paradise Now should remain a nominee, I disagree with their interpretation of the film and how they have framed their argument. The issue of censorship in the arts is thrown in at the end, like an after thought or a covering of all their bases. Censorship, rather than the merits of the content of the film, would have made a more compelling argument. The film was nominated so its merits were already acknowledged. I would have argued that the film is not propaganda, but a work of art and should not be censored.

The counter-petition seemed to be more concerned with the Palestinian cause than with censorship. It repeatedly mentions the necessity of showing the other side of the story emphasizing that there are two sides, one of which is ignored by the media. In addition to its position that the film remain a nominee, it argues that the film remain listed as “from Palestine” not as “from Palestinian Authority.” Arguing that switching the origin of the film denies the historical and present existence of a group of people. I would have added that the film’s director, Hany Abu-Assad, although born in Israel, identifies himself as Palestinian.

The counter-petition found the film to illustrate “how the use of their bodies has become the only form of resistance made available to them,” but it “does not attempt to ‘legitimize’ the bombings.” I disagree that this is the films message, but for arguments sake, if the message is that their bodies are the only form of resistance left, than violence is the only way to resist and the bombings are legitimized. It is not possible to differentiate the choice to be a suicide bomber from the out come of a suicide bombing. This interpretation feels like an attempt to legitimize the author(s)’s pro-violence view of the Palestinian movement, while countering the opposition’s argument against the film.