Culture, Israel

Dispatch from the Human Rights International Film Festival, Number 2: “This Is My Land, Hebron”

p144
L, my companion for the evening, wonders if we can say we actually saw Wallace Shawn, who appears to be sitting three rows ahead of us. It’s definitely him, right? We strain our ears for his trademark voice,  but the din proves too much for us discern properly.
This is not really important, of course, a celebrity sighting at the screening of  “This is My Land, Hebron,” at the Human Rights Watch International Film Festival. It is, however, a reminder to myself to be observant of the audience, which I have come in worried about. The theatre is full, and this is both joyous and disconcerting. Who are these people? Did someone make a phone to right wingers to come and start a ruckus? Is someone going to say something anti Semitic? Some people walk onto the stage and sit down. The audience applauds. I sweat.
The three people, introduced by the moderator, are Dotan Greenberg, a former solider/ activist with Breaking the Silence, and the directors, Giulia Amati and Stephen Nathanson. The moderator asks if anyone would like to say anything before the film starts. Greenberg says that serving in Hebron has changed his views and how he’s active in the society he lives in.
“This is My Land” is a documentary composed primarily of footage and interviews from Hebron, one of the first of which is of a home covered with a wire cage. The owner of the house, a Palestinian woman in hijab, tells the camera that the wire is necessary to keep the stones thrown by Jewish settlers from hitting the people who live there, but that they’ve adapted by throwing smaller stones.

The film interviews some of the Jewish settlers (there are 450? 600? 800?),  and settler leadership who live in Hebron among 150,000 Palestinians. The settlers claim that Hebron is the  place in which the matriarchs and patriachs were born, making it “the heart of the Jewish people.”
A Jewish settler, a woman with covered hair and glasses, walks up to the wire where the Palestinian woman is standing. “Sharmuta (whore),” she shouts, and then, softly, “Sharmuuuttaaa.” It’s chilling and relentless, and the two women scream at each other, while the camera records. After this scene, every time a settler comes on the screen for the next hour and a half, the audience gets twitchy and tense and starts to whisper.
The voices of the  Israeli left featured in the film are prominent names -Uri Avnery, writer, former Member of Knesset, founder of Gush Shalom;  Jessica Montell, Executive Director of Btselem: the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories , and Ha’aretz columnist Gideon Levy. “There is no place in the Occupied Territories I hate more than Hebron,” says Levy. ‘It is a place of evil.”
Yehuda Shaul, one of the founders of Breaking the Silence, spent 14 months in Hebron during his army service (he was actually Dotan Greenberg’s commander.) “One day, you’re looking in the mirror, and you see horns on your head. You think, it’s not me, doing this things, but it is you.” Now, in addition to giving testimonies and traveling with the organization, he gives tours of Hebron.
While escorting a group down Shuhada Street-the principal street for Palestinian residents and businesses and at one time, a prominent market place, now closed to Palestinian traffic- Shaul says to his group, “You’ll only get one perspective today, and I’m sorry for that.” Standing near by, shaking his head, is David Wilder, Hebron settler spokesperson. According to Shaul, Wilder won’t talk to “traitors.” “In any other country,” says Wilder, later in the film, “(Shaul) would be charged with treason and hung.”
There’s footage of a young Palestinian man who’s shackled for 14 hours, allegedly for protecting his sister from IDF forces invading his home. He tells the camera that he’s been beaten on his back. Settler children yell at and knock down internationals from the Christian Peacekeepers. “That’s what you get for defending Arabs,” one girl says. In another scene, Palestinians picking olives while settlers look on, and then eventually face off with soldiers, who tell them that the Palestinians are allowed to pick from their own groves. There is screaming and swearing and accusations. At some points, I’m so uncomfortable that I try to re read my notes in the dark theatre, which is of course, impossible.
“I’m deeply ashamed,” says Levy. “It’s on my behalf, all Israelis are paying the price. The idea is to drive the Palestinians out, create impossible circumstances. We’ve become a country who only cares about ourselves, and maybe not even that…this is proof that the Palestinians are some of the most tolerant and non violent people in the world. Anyone else would have exploded.”
When the film is over, the audience is restless. Nathanson, Amati and Greenberg return to the stage. Amati talks about how hard it was to obtain the settler’s point of view, and without it, making the film would have been useless. And now, the questions. One woman asks why so much of the focus of the film was on Shuhada Street, instead of on the rest of the city. Greenberg: “If you went to Manhattan, and Broadway was closed and only white people could walk on it, wouldn’t that be a story?” She’s not satisfied by his answer and has to be shushed into sitting down.
Every time someone gets called on, I hold my breath anticipating the question.  “Why did you only focus on settler violence against Arabs?” asks an audience member. “In Hebron,” says Greenberg, “Palestinians know the recourse. You don’t see Arab on Jewish violence because everyone is aware of the consequences-curfews, collective punishment. The soldiers are there to protect settlers, and they know the consequences of looking like if they side with Palestinians. That’s why the consequences for Jewish kids throwing stones are different from those of Palestinian ones.” Amati adds that while filming, they never witnessed any Palestinian violence against settlers.
Greenberg is also asked to comment on his experience with Breaking the Silence  in Israel. “Settlers in Hebron are very extreme,” he says, “Not like most Israelis. Most Israelis don’t respond like they do.” The film has not yet been distributed in Israel, but there are plans to do so.
When the q/a is over, and everyone is leaving, I hear a woman’s voice behind me. She’s been making comments to her friends the entire time (“Yeah, that will go well,” re-distributing the film in Israel) and sighing gustily after each of the right wing-y questions. “”Those people,” she says, disgustedly, gathering her things, “Why don’t they go back to Brooklyn where they came from?”

13 thoughts on “Dispatch from the Human Rights International Film Festival, Number 2: “This Is My Land, Hebron”

  1. Maybe the answer really is just one state, on more of a liberal Western model. More and more I’m thinking that.

  2. Well Johnathan, we can look to the successful models of sof binationalism, and the great history of ethnic and religious harmony in the Middle-East.

  3. @Benjamin
    Maybe it’s just better to deal with the complications that may arise from bi-nationalism than it would be to deal with the problems that will result in partition or continuation of the status quo.

  4. Last summer, I went with my boyfriend and his family to the H1 area of Hebron. We didn’t go very far in, and we didn’t see any settlers, only a soldier at the checkpoint we entered through. Nevertheless, it was the only time in all my travels in Israel and Palestine that I have ever felt a fear like that, and I’ve been there during some rough times. The oppression in that place was so palpable. The streets were empty except for a few children and the star of David was graffitied everwhere. It was like a horror movie or some bizarre post-apocalyptic nightmare. I’d love to see that film.

  5. @Alyssa-that is exactly how I felt. It was like nightmares I’ve had, to be a bit cliche about it.I couldn’t believe it was real.

  6. chaneld1621,
    I didn’t see the film, but as a correction, either to your notes or (perhaps less likely) the settlers who were interviewed, Hevron is not the birthplace of the Jewish people’s patriarchs and matriarchs, but their resting place. Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, and Jacob and Leah are all buried there. The Zohar says that the Cave is the gateway to the Garden of Eden.
    For 1400 years, until 1967, Jews were either forbidden from entering the site at all, or restricted to the 7th step leading up to the tombs. Read more about the Cave of Machpelah, our second holiest site after the Temple in Jerusalem.
    As an aside, it may be worthwhile to supplement this post with Michael Totten’s account of his visit to Hevron, and Yaacov Lozowick’s.
    Yaacov, interestingly, makes the point that Hevron is the model for what the international community wants to do to Jerusalem – a city forcibly divided along ethnic lines, with a no man’s land enforced by guns. Except, of course, that Jerusalem is several times larger than Hevron, and the equivalent of Hevron’s evacuated Shuhada Street, which everyone in the comment section finds ghastly and a “post-apocalyptic nightmare” – the 1967 armistice lines – would tear through Jerusalem’s most vibrant metropolitan areas.

  7. Yaacov, interestingly, makes the point that Hevron is the model for what the international community wants to do to Jerusalem – a city forcibly divided along ethnic lines, with a no man’s land enforced by guns. Except, of course, that Jerusalem is several times larger than Hevron, and the equivalent of Hevron’s evacuated Shuhada Street, which everyone in the comment section finds ghastly and a “post-apocalyptic nightmare” – the 1967 armistice lines – would tear through Jerusalem’s most vibrant metropolitan areas
    I was walking around Jerusalem on Yom Yerushalayim, and I’ve been thinking the same thing since then. Maybe one state is the best answer, but we’ll have to give up a lot of our dreams along the way.

  8. Jonathan1 said: “Maybe the answer really is just one state, on more of a liberal Western model.”
    Funny, that’s just the farcical evolution of thinking Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi and all the other PLO intellectuals conveniently arrived at after pretending to sell the idea of co-existence through the pretend demand of a 2 State solution.
    Make no mistake, 1 State means the end of Jewish self determination.
    Why do you think Jews will find a different fate than they did in any of the Arab countries? Who is welcoming liberal and Western values outside of a Jewish government?

  9. Why do you think Jews will find a different fate than they did in any of the Arab countries?
    I can’t say for sure that it would work. But, the present situation is a disaster, and 2 states doesn’t seem practical.
    Maybe we’ll just have to give up on Jewish self-determination, but we’d still have a large Jewish community in the Land of Israel–maybe it could flourish under a different context?

  10. Why is the present situation a disaster?
    Jonathan1, as you know from our exchanges, I’ve been advocating more along the one state model for several years. There are problems with it, to be sure, but also solutions. Gaza and its people can be excluded. National voting rights can be deferred in favor of permanent residency – the “ger toshav” option – or restricted by criteria, which may be a good idea in any case (national service, variable taxation, etc.). Jerusalem’s Arabs have mostly chosen not to participate in the electoral process (4000 vote out of 250,000). States like Germany and the US have millions of non-voting permanent residents, so the precedent exists.
    In the medium term, possibly within the next ten years, Jewish demographics will surpass Palestinian ones, and the Jewish majority will continue to expand. Adding another 1.5 million Arab residents to Israel will be a traumatic shock, but also one offering opportunities for positively impacting the development of Palestinian society, which should be done in Israel proper also.

  11. Why is the present situation a disaster?
    We’re holding 1 million human beings in an open-aired detention camp in Gaza, and another 1.5 million human beings are living under a military regime in Judea and Samaria–that includes military break-in, arrests, checkpoints, firefights, etc. This was a situation that we told the world (and, more importantly, ourselves) would last 1-2, maybe 5 years. And here we are, four decades later, with no end in sight.
    Gaza and its people can be excluded.
    How can it be excluded. This isn’t the US leaving Vietnam, or even Israel leaving Lebanon. How can we pretend that we don’t control Gaza?
    National voting rights can be deferred in favor of permanent residency – the “ger toshav” option – or restricted by criteria, which may be a good idea in any case (national service, variable taxation, etc.). Jerusalem’s Arabs have mostly chosen not to participate in the electoral process (4000 vote out of 250,000). States like Germany and the US have millions of non-voting permanent residents, so the precedent exists.
    This would only work if the Arabs would go along with it. If they don’t cooperate–and I don’t see how they would–then it won’t be sustainable. We won’t have peace until they have peace, and vice versa.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.