6.3.2021

Today we looked into a documentary called "Palestine is still an issue", documented by an award-winning journalist, John Pilger. As it is apparent from the title, this piece of work was a recurring update on the Israel-Palestine issue subsequent to the first version of this documentary, filmed during the 1970s. Mr. Paterson had told us that initially, this newest adaptation was meant to show the significant progress in peace negotiations between the two states. However, as I have seen the documentary, it did not go as predicted, as the video revealed that not only was there no change at all within the past 40 years, it has gotten worse for the Palestinians. Through the screening was I able to understand the opinions of Palestinian residents, as well as those who are in Israel and are speculative towards their own governmental policies. It was interesting to see both sides of the story, and Pilger's attempt at breaking down Israel's supervisor was hilarious as the responses didn't seem to match at all. Especially about the talk on terrorism, where the supervisor kept pushing forward with its ideology that the killing of elderly Palestinian women would be deemed unintentional and thus not a terrorist crime. I guess deliberate excuses reveal their true self, as evading questions regarding their acts of "terrorism" and the independence of Palestine would mean that they are indirectly agreeing with the interviewer and have panicked for an answer that would be convincing yet follow their own policies, thus causing for vague answers towards controversial topics. Moreover, it was also intriguing and depressing at the same time, to observe the drawings made by Palestinian children, which illustrates the normalization of daily open-fire where tanks are usually present. Like the video had explained, I had only seen such damaging scenes in movies, so it would be petrifying to be aware that this scenario could happen at any moment near me. 

Speaking of people who are near me, something that I enjoyed about this film was its ability to showcase the buried truth in large social media companies. For example, I vividly remember one scene where John had gone to an office in Palestine where it was left in unsanitary chaos of littered human waste and walls that were completely destroyed. At first, I wasn't even sure what the place was before the attack. It was that hard to imagine there once being life in a place so utterly wrecked. Another shocking scene was the past homicides of Israeli civilians which involved their own presidents. The imagery of the actual victims laying helplessly on the ground, while the editing flashed back on the poised look of its administrator, the president was very cruel. This showed how Palestinians are not the only cause for large massacres, and since I had never heard about such charges being controlled by the president on the media, I was able to yet again acknowledge the media's lack of motivation and intent towards stories that cover opposing views. However, I would have still liked the documentary to be a little less biased. As seen from the title and throughout the video, the main focus was on the Palestinians and their suffering. Although John had been addressing the homicides initiated by past presidents, I don't think that it the same as the moody Israeli forces lashing out on innocent victims. A quick search on the other side of the conflict (The Israeli Information Center for human rights in the occupied territories) reveals a lot about their incentive and a majority of their information revolves around how Palestinians have killed Israelis. Like the website and other past classes that I took, I know that we all have biases of varying intensity, and I believe that this documentary is more so slanted towards Pro-Palestine. As John had mentioned that any criticism of Israel from the western alliances could be taken into factor as anti-Semitic, and so I thought about countries who are not in the middle east and still prolong good relationships with. Perhaps people in Asia could do something to stand up, as such controversial topics need a mediator with an objective background, just like John Pilger has with his fairly neutral background.