Encounter Point Film Directed by Ronit Avni and Julia Bacha - Essay Example

Encounter Point Israel-Palestine clashes have started thousands of years before. In Old Testaments, numerous incidents of intense wars between Israel and Arabs or Palestinians were mentioned. Even though many efforts were made time to time to resolve the issues between these two cultures or countries, a resolution seems to be unachievable because of the complex cultural issues involved in their conflicts. Jerusalem is a sacred place for the Abrahamic religions; Jews, Christians and Muslims. In fact there may not be any other place in the world which is equally important for all these three religions. The ownership claims over Jerusalem by Muslims and Jews seems to be the major issue involved in Israel-Palestine dispute. “Encounter point” is a 2006 award-winning film directed by Ronit Avni and Julia Bacha. It is about people, who have dedicated their lives to trying to resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict through non-violence means. Non-violence was the ideology through which Mahatma Gandhi succeeded in removing British colonialism from Indian soil. The film “Encounter point” discusses the possibility of implementing that ideology in settling the issues between Israel and Palestine. This paper analyses various dimensions of the Israel-Palestine conflict as portrayed in the film encounter. In my opinion, the film is not portraying the conflict as between two equal or symmetrical parties. In fact the film describes Israel as the dominant party and the Palestinians as the receiving party. There are many scenes in the film in which wounded Palestinians express their bitterness against the Israelis. At the same time there are no scenes which describe any wounded Israeli blaming the Palestinians at the rehabilitation center. The above fact clearly suggests that the intention of the director of this film was never to portray the clashes between Israel and Palestine as a clash between two equal forces. The film is definitely unbalanced even though some perceive it as favoring the Palestinian side while others as favoring the Israeli side. “In one scene a Palestinian makes the claim the IDF put poison on their bullets. There is no Israeli to rebut that unlikely claim, nor to mention the fact that suicide bombers add metal bolts and screws to their explosives to maximize civilian casualties” (Gates). In other words, the film says many things about the massacres of Israeli soldiers. At the same time, it says nothing about the suicide bombers from the Palestinian side. The director seems to be taking the side of the Palestinians even though the director tried very much to generate the feeling that his film is unbiased. “In another scene a Palestinian meeting Israeli peace activists says we are waiting to see Israelis who are interested in peace. No mention is made of Israel’s attempts at peace at Oslo, Taba, and just recently leaving Gaza” (Gates). The film gave more emphasize to the peace efforts of Palestinians whereas it keep silence over the peace efforts made by the Israelis. In the context of the current Israel-Palestine conflict, a balanced film should have shown the merits and demerits of both the sides in equal magnitudes. In fact both the sides engage in bloody acts in their own ways. Israel may have superior weapons to conduct bloody encounters whereas Palestine has suicide bombers to cause heavy casualties in Israel. At the same time, there are many people in both the sides who like to see peace and harmony in Middle East. Many people on either side like to end the war as soon as possible to avoid casualties on either side. It is illogical to label all the Israelis as war lovers and Palestinians as peace lovers. A balanced film would have unveiled the brighter and darker sides of each party and leave the viewers to make their own judgments about this issue. I will recommend this video for others since this video succeeded in portraying the depth of the Israel- Palestine issue. Arab – Israel conflict is one of the main threats for the global peace at present and the awareness about different dimensions of this issue could help the peace lovers all over the world to come out with some solutions or recommendations to solve this historical conflict forever. It is a fact that US foreign policies are more supportive to the Israelis rather than to Palestinians. In fact Israel and America are spreading various rumors about this conflict in order to achieve global support to their stands in Middle East. This film tries to reveal the real facts up to certain extent and therefore whose who are staying miles away from Middle East may get some ideas about what is really going on in Middle East or Palestine at present. Ali Abu Awwad is the major character in this film. He was shot at the lower portion of his body by an Israeli and was forced to go to Saudi Arabia for treatment. At the time of his treatment, he received the message that his brother was shot dead by the Israeli forces. Even though, Ali Abu Awwad received many bad treatments from the Israelis, he did not give up his effort to bring peace and harmony in Middle East. He followed the way of non-violence and tried to educate the public both in Palestine and Israel about the necessities of solving this dispute with the help of the theory of non-violence. In fact Mahatma Gandhi was founder of the theory of non-violence and he was the first one who showed the world that freedom can be achieved through non-violent ways. Ali Abu Awwad resembles with Mahatma Gandhi in this film. It should be noted that Gandhi once showed his left cheek to a British soldier who slapped him on his right cheek. Ali Abu Awwad was also trying to do the same thing in this film. He has never shown any vengeance towards the Israelis who attacked him and murdered his brother. In short, Ali Abu Awwad was the lead character in this film. Nonviolence is a weapon available to all, it is least likely to alienate opponents and third parties, it breaks the cycle of violence and counter-violence. It leaves open the possibility of conversion; it ensures that the media focus on the issue at hand rather than some tangential act of violence and it is the surest way of achieving public sympathy. Further, it is more likely to produce a constructive rather than a destructive outcome, it is a method of conflict resolution that may aim to arrive at the truth of a given situation (rather than mere victory for one side) and it is the only method of struggle that is consistent with the teachings of the major religions (Nonviolence: An Introduction) I strongly believe that non-violence is definitely the best way to tackle international disputes like the ones that happens in Middle East. Bloody wars will always intensify the disputes further and further. Those who lost valuable things and beloved ones in wars may not show any mercy towards the enemy while solving disputes in between them. Diplomacy is always better to solve international disputes. It should be noted that in a recent crisis situation, instead of adopting violent ways, India adopted diplomatic ways to solve the crisis developed as a result of the recent Mumbai terrorist attack. To conclude, the film encounter point succeeded in making the international community aware of the necessities of peaceful means in solving the disputes between Israel and Palestine. Though the film appears to be dealing the Arab-Israel issue in a neutral manner, it is evident that the director is justifying the Palestinians more in this film Works cited Gates, Anita. “Encounter Point (2006) On Opposite Sides, United by Grief”. 2006. The New York Times. November 17, 2006. Web. 10 November 2011. “Nonviolence: An Introduction”. Web. 10 November 2011. Read More