Click on map to enlarge. Courtesy of Ir Amim.

Worldfocus spoke with Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow at the American Task Force for Palestine, a non-profit dedicated to a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Originally from Beirut, Ibish is the former Washington D.C. correspondent for Lebanon’s Daily Star and current author of IbishBlog.

Worldfocus: How would you characterize the current situation in Jerusalem?

Hussein Ibish: Jerusalem is the most divided city in the world. Israelis in West Jerusalem and the Jewish quarter feel like normal citizens of the Israeli state living under Israeli law. For them, life is very normal.

But East Jerusalem is more than 80 percent Arab. The situation is similar to that in the rest of the occupied territory, but it’s starker in Jerusalem because they’re living in such proximity. Insofar as an analogy to “apartheid” applies, this is more stark in Jerusalem than anywhere else, where separate and unequal is almost universal.

Most Jerusalem Arabs are not in effect subjects of Israeli law but practically live under martial law. In many cases, they’re technically residents of Israel — but not citizens. They can’t vote in national elections. And they generally don’t vote in municipal elections. Jerusalem is the flash point for the conflict.

Worldfocus: Why can’t the leaders on both sides reach a rational agreement about sharing the city?

Hussein Ibish: The cultural, religious and political importance of the holy places means that Jerusalem is central to both populations. Both sides are becoming increasingly influenced by right-wing religious rhetoric. The conflict is transforming from an ethnic struggle over land and power in a small area — into a religious struggle between bearded fanatics on both sides about the will of God and holy places.

The Old City of Jerusalem requires a creative solution and the unique formula like the Vatican City. It can’t be the exclusive preserve of any of the religious or ethnic groups. A unique formula has to be found. But it’s not beyond the wit of man to come up with a solution for this, because the national interests of all parties require it.

Worldfocus: Are there certain deal-breakers on the issue of Jerusalem?

Hussein Ibish: For the Israeli side, the “right of return” (for Palestinian refugees) is a deal-breaker just like the claim that Jerusalem is the undivided and eternal Israeli capital is for the Palestinians. This kind of rhetoric acts as a political narcotic: it makes people feel good, but it’s extremely damaging.

But when you get into the final status agreement, these are all issues that can be negotiated successfully. Both parties have a stake in making it work. That could keep Jerusalem united and parts of the city jointly administered — although with separate sovereignty. All it takes is political will and some creativity. I’ve thought about it a lot, and I’m a skeptical person, but it seems possible to me. It’ll be an unusual arrangement reflecting the unique character of the place.

There are reciprocal bitter pills on the right of return and Jerusalem both sides must swallow in their own existential national interests.

The only serious player really resistant to this idea [to create two capitals in Jerusalem] is the Israeli government, which is trying to prevent Jerusalem from being a topic of discussion in any the final status talks. But Obama made it very clear that the terms of reference need to be clear and precise — and involve security for both parties, borders, refugees and Jerusalem. The U.S. position on Jerusalem is closer to the Palestinian view than to the Israeli one. There is implicit understanding in the U.S. that most of East Jerusalem needs to be the Palestinian capital.

There will also clearly have to be a land swaps. The Palestinian people accept that, and the leadership accepts it. Not every settlement in and around Jerusalem must be evacuate. I don’t mean that the Palestinians will be unwilling to have Israelis [in Palestinian-controlled East Jerusalem] or elsewhere in the Palestinian state. But the Israel government would probably not want to face the crisis of some incident involving Israeli citizens living in newly sovereign Palestinian state, and I think it will be they who push for
evacuation in the event of an agreement.

Both sides should be creative and flexible and Israel should be willing to evacuate settlements that make Palestinian statehood impossible. It’s politically problematic but not impossible. These are painful concessions for both but they are obviously necessary. It’s all about a series of complicated quid pro quos. This is not a menu where you can go through and choose what you want based on your tastes, its a delicate pattern of concessions. It’s also a kaleidoscope. Every time you move the image a little, the whole pattern shifts.

Worldfocus: Do you envision that Jewish Israelis will be able to stay on in the areas that become Palestine in East Jerusalem and the West Bank?

Hussein Ibish: Palestinian citizenship or dual citizenship for them is possible, but I don’t think the Israeli government will allow it in the West Bank, though they might find a way to make it work in East Jerusalem.

An agreement is in the core existential national interest of both parties. Settlements will be evacuated according to a variety of formulae. At least 75,000 [Jewish settlers] will need to be removed. That means perhaps up to 200,000- 300,000 will be staying where they are in the small parts of West Bank such as Ma’ale Adumim that will become part of Israel.

The bottom line is that the Palestinians cannot be denied 22% of Mandatory Palestine — the equivalent of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. I think they need and deserve that.

Worldfocus: What role will Palestinian Gaza play if it continues to be a separate entity from the Palestinian West Bank?

Hussein Ibish: Gaza has no independent future from the rest of Palestine. The idea of a political status that is separate is completely wrong. Very few people in the Gaza Strip want that. Israel is strategically trying to emphasize these divisions, but it’s not something that will take.

I don’t think we’re looking at a scenario yet where Hamas can really succeed in replacing the PLO. They’re quite far away from that. All they hope to do so is for negotiations to break down. Hamas are weak and isolated — only able to maintain control in Gaza through brute force and oppression. Hamas thrives on chaos, stalemate [in talks] and a rhetoric of confrontation and violence. Their core constituency — at most 13-15 percent of the Palestinian population — believes in the Muslim Brotherhood model. But that’s not really a major political force unless there is no hope for peace.

Worldfocus: How about fresh alternatives to the Fatah-Hamas split?

Hussein Ibish: Salam Fayyad a very serious actor on the scene, yet he’s not a politician. Fatah is a dysfunctional political party but commands major support. The PA could use Fatah’s political authority to facilitate Fayyad’s state-building agenda and technocratic prowess. This is crucial because Fayyad’s plan provides another avenue for progress, change and momentum towards ending both the occupation and the conflict. If 1/20 of Fayyad’s plan could be implemented, there would be a serious transformation of the strategic environment, greatly enhancing Palestinian interests and the prospects for peace.

I think his plan could serve as a crucial augmentation of diplomacy and a parallel track that is constructive, serious and transformational. The biggest threat to it at the moment is the idea of dissolving the PA and going back functioning strictly through the PLO as a diplomatic but not a governing entity. With international financial support and political protection, it would be very difficult for Israel to block this institution-building plan. In short order, this could really change the Palestinian political scene and the strategic environment for the better.

- Ben Piven

Listen to Worldfocus Radio: Martin Savidge hosts “Jerusalem United or Divided?” with Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative and Gershon Baskin of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.

Listen to Worldfocus Radio: Martin Savidge hosts “Jerusalem United or Divided?” with Mustafa Barghouti of the Palestinian National Initiative and Gershon Baskin of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information.

Click here for more of Worldfocus’ coverage of Israel.

Currently, Barghouti is the Secretary-General of the Palestinian National Initiative, a political party that was formed in 2002 with Edward Said, Dr. Haidar Abdel-Shafi and Ibrahim Dakkak. The Initiative (al-Mubadara in Arabic) calls for nonviolent resistance against the Israel occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Worldfocus producer Mohammad al-Kassim recently interviewed Barghouti in New York. The rising Palestinian politician talks openly about the difficulties facing the Middle East process, infighting among Palestinians and the Obama administration. Despite all the obstacles, Barghouti feels surprisingly positive about the future.

Also, listen to Barghouti on Worldfocus Radio: Jerusalem United or Divided?

Israeli soldiers argue with a Palestinian farmer in at-Tuwani, West Bank. Photo: Flickr user JoshHough

The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians is in crisis, with no sign that a key issue — freezing Israeli settlements — can be resolved any time soon.

With that in mind, we want to go beyond the rhetoric and look at how Israelis and Palestinians see their shared land.

Should Israel agree to demands to freeze all settlement building?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Daljit Dhaliwal speaks with prominent Israeli scholar on Iran, Professor David Menashri. He is director of the Center for Iranian Studies and dean of special programs at Tel Aviv University.

Menashri explains whether or not Israel and other countries think the perceived threat by Iran can be eliminated without using military force. He also discusses Israeli public opinion on the Iranian nuclear program.

In one of the world’s most contentious cities, there are two conflicting claims to sovereignty over holy places and residential neighborhoods. East and West Jerusalem are divided along ethnic and religious lines — in addition to the separation fence that Israel built to secure the city.

Palestinians claim the eastern sections of the city as the capital of a future Palestinian state. While successive Israeli prime ministers have announced support for a two-state solution, there is ambivalence about how and when to alter the city’s political fabric.

Martin Savidge hosts Mustafa Barghouti and Gershon Baskin on this week’s Worldfocus Radio show “Jerusalem United or Divided?”

The radio show builds upon three Worldfocus signature videos about Israel — on hi-tech, divorce and settlements — and will focus on the following areas:

• Geography of Jerusalem: East and West, Old City, Temple Mount and security barrier
• Demographic Shift: secular flight, “Judaization,” and “united” capital city
• Shared Capital: unilateral statehood, joint sovereignty and Palestinian government

Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Ben Piven

GUESTS:

Mustafa Barghouti is the secretary-general of the Palestinian National Initiative (al-Mubadara), also known as the “third way.” A Ramallah resident, he serves in the Palestinian parliament (PLC) and was the Minister of Information in the short-lived Palestinian unity government. He came in second (with 19%) to Mahmoud Abbas in the 2005 presidential elections. He also appeared on the Daily Show last month.

Gershon Baskin is co-chairman of the Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information, a Jerusalem-based organization committed to the two-state solution. He specializes in the future of Jerusalem, strategic cooperation and water issues. He was also on Israeli PM Ehud Barak’s team of Jerusalem experts following the Camp David talks.

Credits:
Host: Martin Savidge
Producers: Ben Piven and Lisa Biagiotti
Researcher: Mohammad al Kassim

CHINA: Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao met with US President Barack Obama in Beijing, where they discussed a range of issues of common concern to both countries. China made few concessions to the U.S.

INDIA: Ahead of India’s Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Washington, the U.S. is asking Pakistan to take actions against the groups allegedly responsible for the Mumbai attacks.

SOUTH KOREA: Legislators of South Korea’s National Assembly were in favor of the government’s latest decision to dispatch military forces to protect civilian aid workers in Afghanistan.

SOMALIA: Late Tuesday a woman accused of committing adultery was stoned to death in Somalia. A judge working for the militant group Al-Shabaab said the women had given birth to a stillborn baby. Her boyfriend was given 100 lashes.

Pirates on Wednesday attacked the US flagged ship Maersk Alabama for the second time. Just seven months ago the ship was attacked and the captain taken hostage, though he was eventually rescued. This time the ship was able to repel the attack.

ITALY: The UN Food and Agriculture Summit ended Wednesday with little progress in the way of a new strategy to combat hunger, as aid agency Oxfam said the effort offered little more than “crumbs” to the one in six people who do not have enough to eat.

GERMANY: Chancellor Angela Merkel said Wednesday that German troops would stay in Afghanistan for another year, though she would not commit additional troops to the region.

UK: Queen Elizabeth II laid out new plans for financial regulation in her speech at the opening of Parliament on Wednesday.

LATIN AMERICA: Analysts say that the number of people per household in Latin America will drop by 18% in 2020.

EL SALVADOR: The government in El Salvador estimates $880 million worth of damage due to flooding and mudslides in the country in early November.

MEXICO: Experts in Mexico say that the epidemic of obesity in children could reduce life expectancy rates in the country.

IRAQ: Preparation for Iraq’s January general elections are on hold because Iraq’s Sunni Arab vice president vetoed part of an election law.

ISRAEL: The United States, in an unusually strong criticism of Israel, voiced dismay at the approval of new Jewish housing in annexed east Jerusalem.

A charity linked to the militant Hamas group offered $1.4 million dollars for anyone who takes an Israeli soldier hostage.

UAE, DUBAI: American talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey apologized to her followers for an episode of her show featuring women from around the world in which a guest from Dubai gave false information about life in Dubai.

PALESTINE: Israeli bulldozers demolished a two-family Palestinian home in the town of Al-Isawiya in occupied East Jerusalem today, the second home demolition in two days.

A checkpoint in the West Bank.

Ambassador S. Azmat Hassan is a former career diplomat and a former Ambassador of Pakistan to Malaysia, Syria and Morocco and Deputy Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York. He currently serves as an Adjunct Professor at Seton Hall University. He is a contributing blogger for Worldfocus.

In the past decades the United States has taken the lead in initiating a number of diplomatic moves to cut the Gordian knot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There are two UN Security Council Resolutions agreed to by the protagonists: the Madrid Peace Process and the Road Map to a two-state solution. These initiatives have largely foundered on the twin shoals of Israeli intransigence and Palestinian disunity.

Enter President Obama with his vow to improve U.S. relations with the Muslim world. His speeches in Egypt and Turkey calling for new beginning were warmly welcomed by Muslims and indeed the wider international community. Obama called for a total freeze on Israeli settlements as a necessary first step to starting comprehensive negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians aimed at ending their conflict. No doubt his motives were sincere. However, his efforts have yielded no concrete results so far.

The Israeli government, led by Netanyahu and his hawkish Foreign Minister Lieberman, have spurned Obama’s entreaties to freeze all settlement building in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The U.S. then changed course and is now trying to get the two sides to talk while new settlement blocks continue to be built. No Palestinian leadership can be expected to negotiate in this scenario. The impasse has deepened. US credibility is at a low point in the Muslim world.

The opinion in the street is that Obama lacks the clout with Netanyahu to bring him around to halt all settlement activity in the occupied Palestinian territories. Not doing so means that a two state solution will not happen. The ability of the U.S. to act as an honest broker is thus being questioned again. Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas seems to have thrown up his hands in despair. He says he will not be standing for reelection next January.

The U.S. is the main supporter and aid-giver to Israel. U.S. interests in the Middle East apparently dictate that it continues to support Israel — come what may. I disagree with this post-1967 assessment because the Middle East has evolved. Clinging to old shibboleths in foreign policy never helps. But the real question is how long will the Arab countries continue to put up with the abominable status quo of Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands?

Meanwhile, the Palestinian political leadership is split with the extremist Hamas faction ruling in Gaza while an increasing weak and ineffectual Abbas has a tenuous hold in the West Bank, and Palestinians continue to suffer the daily humiliations of an onerous Israeli occupation.

I think the Obama administration needs to get tough with both the Israelis and Palestinians. Both should be told that they have to get their act together. The Israelis should be told in no uncertain terms that they cannot expect to hold on to the West Bank and East Jerusalem indefinitely. The US should not be squeamish. It must treat Israel as any other country in the Middle East and not as a special case. The Fatah and Hamas factions need to be told to bury their differences, form a unity government and engage with the Israelis. Sometimes tough love produces fruitful results compared to continuing meaningless talks to nowhere.

Whether Obama and his team can summon the political resolve, commitment and impartiality in moving the two parties toward a final settlement of this long standing conflict remains to be seen. One can only hope that Obama will succeed where his predecessors have failed. Otherwise we should brace ourselves for another eruption of bloody fighting with incalculable consequences for peace and stability in the Middle East.

The views of contributing bloggers do not reflect the views of Worldfocus or its partners.

Yuli Edelstein, the Minister of Public Affairs and the Diaspora in the Israeli cabinet, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss the prospects of peace in the Middle East and why Israel won’t agree to a settlement freeze.

Al Jazeera English’s John Terrett reports on the challenges and reasons behind Abbas’ decision to bow out of politics — including the expansion of Israeli settlements and the impartial U.S. stance.

Pottery, glass and ceramic making are ancient industries in Hebron, Palestine. The city’s leather, stone, glass and ceramic goods are found throughout Palestinian, Israeli and Arab markets — but this is changing with the advent of economic globalization and fierce competition from inexpensive Chinese goods. Additionally, the political instability that has plagued the region for many years scares away tourists.

Emad El Natche and his family own and operate a Hebron glass and ceramics factory. Mr. El Natche spends hours in front of a gas oven melting recycled glass bottles at high temperatures. No two pieces that Mr. El Natche creates are alike; he prides himself on the attention to detail each piece gets. He says all of his creations are unique because of the process that no machine can replicate.

Despite the challenges from globalization and a lack of master craftsmen, El Natche remains hopeful that this ancient craft is not going to disappear without a fight.

- Mohammad al Kassim

Daljit Dhaliwal talks about the latest developments with Daniel Levy, co-director of the Middle East Task Force at the New America Foundation. He says that many are waiting to see what — if anything — the U.S. has to offer in the way of a new U.S. proposal for the MidEast peace process.

Is the U.S. even-handed in dealing with Israel’s settlement policy?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Only a few days after Turkey excluded Israel from a joint NATO war exercise, a new crisis is brewing between the two Middle East allies.

The problem is a television drama series that Israel condemns as state-sanctioned “incitement.”

“Separation,” a 13-part TV series that aired on Turkey’s state-run television channel for the first time on Wednesday, has several controversial scenes. In one, a Palestinian father holds his new-born above his head in front of Israeli soldiers at a check point. A few seconds later, one of the soldiers shoots the baby dead. In another scene, Israeli soldiers kick and beat elderly Palestinians on the streets and one soldier shoots a teenage Palestinian girl on her chest.

Here is an excerpt from the television drama “Separation:”

The drama outraged Israel. The Foreign Ministry summoned the deputy chief of mission at the Turkish embassy to complain and protest. “Such a drama series, which doesn’t even have the slightest link to reality and which presents Israeli soldiers as murderers of innocent children, isn’t worthy of being broadcast even by enemy states and certainly not in a state which has full diplomatic relations with Israel,” said Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

The coordinator of the Turkish drama replied by saying that none of the incidents in the show were “imaginary.” “It is possible to find photographs of what Israelis did to Palestinians on the Internet,” said Bulent Erdinc, the series coordinator.

The Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu also shrugged off angry Israeli protests over the show saying the Turkish state “has no right to comment on the quality of broadcasts or the opinions expressed in them.” This statement should be met with some skepticism as Turkey’s record on freedom of speech issues is not known to be very high.

The controversial scenes in the drama are subjective. I’m sure some people will think they’re simple propaganda and some will think them a reflection of reality. In general, Turkish films, especially TV dramas and soap-operas, do tend towards exaggerated melodrama.

But a broader question here is whether filmmakers should care about the sensitivities of those they depict.  For example, should the producers and writers of the drama series “24″ have taken into consideration the fact that their depiction of Muslim terrorists may have possibly led to suspicion against ordinary Arab-Americans?

The TV drama is airing on Turkey’s state-owned channel, TRT. This channel, according to law, has to be “autonomous and impartial.” However, since the Islamist-based ruling AK party came to power in Turkey, TRT has been criticized for its religious/conservative programming, and also for appointing party sympathizers. I think it’s quite possible that the government officials knew what this television drama, which has been advertised in Turkey for a long time, was going to entail. And I imagine they could foresee the reaction it would draw from Israel.

In that case, considering the already strained relations between the two “allied” nations, the question becomes, is the Turkish government interested in enlarging the rift between the two countries? And if so, what would this say about the future of the Middle East?

- Gizem Yarbil

A young anti-war protester in Paris on January 10, 2009. Photo: Flickr user looking4poetry

Almost one year after the devastating war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Security Council could soon use the U.N. Human Rights Council-endorsed Goldstone Commission Report to pursue legal action against alleged war criminals on both sides.

Supporters of Israel and the Palestinians continue to debate the relative merits of the report. Media in the Middle East are skeptical that the report will lead to concrete legal results.

Do you think Israel and/or the Palestinians should face prosecution for their actions in the Gaza War?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Sergeant Gilad Schalit.

In the Middle East, an unusual exchange took place on Friday between Israel and the militant Palestinian organization Hamas, resulting in proof that an Israeli prisoner held for more than three years is still alive.

Hamas released a two-minute video showing Sergeant Gilad Schalit displaying a newspaper to show the date, September 14. He said he was in good health and that his captors were treating him well. He got up to show that he could walk.

Watch the video.

Before Hamas released that video, Israel freed 19 female prisoners who were greeted by hundreds of supporters as they returned home to the West Bank. Hamas is demanding freedom for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in return for Gilad Schalit’s release.

Should Israel agree to release hundreds of Palestinian prisoners to secure the release of one Israeli soldier?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

On Thursday, the United States, along with the other permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, will meet with Iranian officials in Switzerland hoping to convince Iran to come clean about its nuclear ambitions.

They may be fighting an uphill battle. On Wednesday, Iranian President Mamhoud Ahmadinejad said that it’s the West that needs to change its ways.

Israel will be following the progress of the negotiations closely. There has been talk that the Israelis will take military action against Iran, if the talks don’t succeed.

Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies joins Martin Savidge to discuss whether an Israeli air strike against Iran’s facilities would even be effective. Read his opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.

If the talks in Switzerland fail, would Israel be justified in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below. Please remember to be respectful and on-point in your comments. Malicious or offensive comments will be deleted and repeat offenders will be banned.

Worldfocus special correspondent Martin Himel reports from Israel.

For more:

• Read Martin Himel’s blog: Heroes, Hollywood and making it through the day
• Read commentary from a Jerusalem film scholar: Israeli cinema: Growing up

The Worldfocus signature story “Israeli films explore realities of warfare, faith” explores the themes of Israeli cinema. Amy Kronish is an author living in Jerusalem. She lectures on a variety of subjects dealing with film and has written two books on Israeli cinema. She blogs at Israeli Film and Filmmakers.

Israeli films and filmmakers have been enjoying a tremendous amount of recognition all over the world during these last 10-15 years. A government increase in funding for filmmaking combined with the establishment of commercial TV have encouraged the growth and development of the industry, leading to a dramatic change in the quantity and quality of the feature films being produced. The aesthetics of these high-quality, self-critical films, which are characterized by multifaceted and complex scripts, reflecting a wide diversity of style and substance, are what makes Israeli film so interesting today.

Like Israeli literature, and Israel itself, the country’s cinema has been moving away from the overriding political and ideological issues of existence such as war, heroism and ideology, which were part and parcel of the state-in-the-making of the past 60 years. Instead, during the last 10-15 years, Israeli filmmakers have turned their cameras to personal, humanistic stories — of love, loss and relationships — and social issues, such as feminism and homosexuality, ethnic assimilation and social alienation. These new themes can be seen not in opposition to the political, but rather in adding complexity and humanity to the political. In addition, the camera has become focused on a new subject — the Palestinian Arab minority within the State of Israel – the relationship to this minority, their issues and culture, and their historical narrative. From decades of stereotypical heroic images to more complex yet individualistic ones, Israeli cinema continues to evolve, confronting both the critical collective and personal existential dilemmas which are in the consciousness of the people of Israel today.

Not surprisingly, however, Israelis flock to see Hollywood films, as do filmgoers everywhere. How do we reconcile these two, but very different, forms of popular cinema? We go to see Hollywood films out of a desire for good entertainment mixed with a need for escapism, and we go to see locally produced films that help us grapple with contemporary issues, relive historical trauma, and consider societal trends in a self-critical manner.

Take for example two award-winning films produced in 2009 – Ajami, directed by Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani, deals with contemporary issues and Lebanon, directed by Shmuel Maoz, brings the viewer to almost experience the horror of wartime. Ajami, which won special mention at Cannes and recently won the Israeli Ophir Award for best feature film of 2009, is about issues of identity, crime, drugs, and the violence and desperation of life in the Israeli Arab neighborhood of Jaffa. Constructed in the style of Pulp Fiction, the narrative moves back and forth in time, until all the plot lines intertwine.

During the last few years, we have seen major award-winning films about the war in Lebanon which lasted from 1982 to 2000 – Beaufort (Joseph Cedar), Waltz with Bashir (Ori Folman), and a few earlier films. All of these films illustrate a move in Israeli society from the heroism of the earlier periods to a new understanding of the complexity and futility of war. This year’s big prize winner at the Venice Film Festival, Lebanon, takes place completely within the claustrophobic confines of a tank and the viewer cringes each time he hears the clanking as the turret turns and as soldiers slam closed the opening.

Israeli society has matured and the recent films are a reflection of this new maturity. The films have become complex and the images portrayed are diverse and multifaceted. No longer are women marginalized, nor are ethnic characters portrayed as stereotypes or Arab characters seen as one-dimensional figures. On the contrary, the films portray quirky, in-depth and varied characters, all grappling with issues of contemporary society. Although the films still deal with existential issues of war and peace, Jews and Arabs, and are panoramic in their scope, they are emotional and intimate in their glimpse at real and everyday life in contemporary Israel.

These films deal with issues in a more complex and humanistic way, integrating elements of gender, societal alienation, and social issues. Creating films that are both particularistic and universal at the same time, these films are still uniquely Israeli yet also speak to an international audience.

Watch a trailer of Ajami, a film made by an Israeli and Palestinian.

Watch a trailer of Waltzing with Bashir, the Israeli film nominated for an Academy Award.

Martin Himel

Martin Himel is a special correspondent for Worldfocus.  He blogs here about why he chose to highlight the films of Joseph Cedar for his signature story on Israeli cinema.

Joseph Cedar is probably Israel’s most highly acclaimed director. His movie “Beaufort” was also nominated for an Oscar. It focuses on life in an Israeli frontline bunker on the Lebanese front.

What makes Cedar’s films different from Hollywood war films is there are no heroes, no super-fighters who change the tide of events. The characters are almost always very human, frightened, small, scared, trying to survive day by day — just trying to get through it all and make it home to family, girlfriends and those that care.

For most combat servicemen, whether Israeli, American, Lebanese, or other, that experience of just “trying to make it through alive” is the dominant motivation, the overwhelming drive.

They are not the resource for those larger-than-life Hollywood characters, but those “small people” are the essence of Israeli film. That’s what makes the movies unique, credible and powerful.

Joseph Cedar himself was a paratrooper . He tasted combat first hand. His goal as a director was not to make a grandiose statement of war. He simply wants to put us — the viewer — in the bunker, with his friends, with their sweaty clothes, their wounds, their tired unshaven faces, and their claustrophobic living space.

As a veteran foreign correspondent, I have covered several Middle East and Balkan wars. Watching films like Saving Private Ryan or Born on the Forth of July made me cringe just a bit. The characters were too big for life. It was pure Hollywood.

In Cedar’s film “Beaufort,” I felt I was in the bunker with the soldiers.  I felt their terror with each incoming shell. I felt their anguish when they lost a friend.

Real images from the past — almost forgotten — vividly come back when I watched this film. I remember the American Marines compound in South Beirut in 1983. It was just hours after a suicide bomber plowed a truck laden with explosives into the headquarters killing over 200 soldiers.

We were barricaded into a bunker, soldiers at the ready with fingers on the trigger, terrified. The next bomber might smash into the compound and claim more lives. There were no heroes; there were a lot of tears; there were many frightened young men just trying to get through that day, then another — just to get back home.

- Martin Himel