yorick’s yearnings

Miral is quite an infamous movie. Infamous for its pro-palestinian perspective, its substantive lack of depth, subjectivity and even for the audacity of casting a “bollywood actress” for the female leading character. Much of this critic is not rightly deserved but might be due to the nature of expectations derived from Schnabel’s earlier movies, like Le scaphandre et le papillon.

While some or the critic can be rejected outright, the major problems remain. In fact, at least regarding my restricted talents, the movie as such is extremely challenging. First, there is the style in which Schnabel creates movies, his many different techniques, styles, blends that some times do not fit and are not always convincing (especially in the end when he does a sacrifice to popular taste by adding Tom Waits to Hind’s funeral).

The more challenging (and more fruitful) problem is posed by the perspective which, in a way, is similar to that of Le scaphandre et le papillon, as it is completely restricted to one view. While in the early movie, the perspective largely was that of the French editor Bauby – going as far as locking the audience into his body and looking through his eyes – the latter movie takes a strictly Palestinian position. This is very restricted and can be discussed in multiple (not necessarily negative) ways. First, the stories of the three main female characters: Hind, Nadia and Miral. Even though all of them remain somewhat anaemic, all of them face in their very own way a reality which forces them into action but which they cannot shape. In the end, the real hero of the movie turns out not to be Miral, who, like their mother leaves a desperate existence behind. The true hero is Hind al-Husseini, who is portrayed as a flawless saint, coming from some kind of a fairy tale long turned into forgotten history (illustrated by the old maps of the middle east shown in the beginning of the movie), struggling to turn wretched refugees and orphans into emancipated personalities able to carry on the fate of the Palestinian people. Of course, she fails. Not because of the archaic, traditionally patriarchal structure of the Palestinian society (which is thematized in a somewhat marginal way while telling Nadia’s story). Not because the invading Israelis, who mostly are portrayed as a dark, violent and alien force, but because of the frictions within the Palestinian society itself.

True, Israel is the bad guy in this film – but that is the Palestinian perspective on the matter, be it right or wrong. But the fact that most Israelis represent not real human beings, but a somewhat impersonal power, can be interpreted at least in two different ways. First, it can be seen as plainly anti-Semitic – the fact that the only “real” Israeli in the movie, a girl from Haifa that befriends Miral against her will, does not fit into the stereotype at all is no argument against it. Yet, I still am somewhat hesitant to apply this interpretation. The movie as such is – even though it is full with Hind’s social commitment and the political fight of Palestinian resistance movements – a completely anti-political movie, as Julian Schnabel himself pointed out. Like the historian Jacob Burckhardt 150 years ago, Schnabel portrays political power itself as evil and corrupting. It is not just the Israelis who distort a peaceful life. The Palestinians destroy themselves and their hopes for a better future by their political radicalism and their intolerance. In the end, Miral’s love, the Palestinian terrorist, not only seems to be refined and ready to make peace with Israel, but he also – and consequently – is murdered by his own people for his deviance. This murder destroy Miral’s dreams as effectively as the intifada and the political engagement of her pupils have destroyed Hind’s – and while Hind in the end is shown sitting in her empty school, old, deeply afflicted and lonely, the only perspective for Miral lies in leaving her country for good. In the end, all of them turn out to be a simple flower at the roadside, helpless watching how the wheels keep turning.

The movie has many minor defaults, above all because it fails to create multi-faceted, developing protagonists. But it gives an impressive account on the Palestininan perspective of the Mideast conflict and shows at the same time, why there are no simple solutions, even with regards to only one of the warring factions. To get an idea of the whole picture, however, a deeper involvement with the Israeli view also would be necessary.

The last couple of days, I have been busy. Not with my work, unfortunately, but with discussions in Germany’s facebook, studiVZ. The whole thing was triggered because I got an invitation to join a forum, entitled: Islam is submission. Its founder has a certain renown for islamophobia on the platform and is linked to another forum: Politically Incorrect (PI). Politically Incorrect describes itself as a blog “explicitly directed against mainstream, pro-American and Israel-friendly.” While his style of debating is startling, it is very typical for the new, petit bourgeois and seemingly philosemitic right in Germany.

The basic statement would be that “Islam is an anti-Semitic ideology”, a few quotes from quran (Sura 4.38b [34b] or Sura 2.186-189), enriched with a couple of theses from popular books by Peter Scholl-Latour then paint a picture that ultimately questions the legitimacy of Islam as a religion and a culture completely.

The main idea is that Islam threatens our secular and liberal foundations, and therefore Islam (and Muslims) must be pushed back. Of course there are aspects, especially in political Islam, that are extremely dangerous and hostile towards everything representing “the great satan”, vulgo: the Western world. Of course it is correct that these sects have partisans in Germany as well.

But first: Islam never has been a uniform religion. This means that the vast majority of Muslims does not share the same ideas, even when it comes down to how to interpret quranic verses the correct way. The picture of a monolithic ideology threatening our values simply is incorrect, not only politically.

Second – and this is the unsavoury bit: the whole issue is not about Islam at all. While it is always said that Islam is totalitarian, against women’s rights and aggressively intolerant, the structure of the argument is different and very old. One standard line is directed against slaughtering animals according to Islamic law, because this method is regarded as a violation of animal’s rights. Not that these people would care much about animal’s rights, because they obviously do not care whether the usual European methods are any better. In fact, the discussion goes very much alongside the arguments we had in Europe a hundred years ago about the shehitah. The only difference is that this time it is not about Jews, but about Muslims.

I doubt that religious rights or religious freedom are the problem here. There is far more at stake. The structure only leads in one direction: to prove that Muslims cannot be integrated into our society – and not only Muslims. The same arguments can and have been used against Jews already. But the claim to be philosemitic! I am convinced that this is nothing more than a pretext – it gives them an argument against everybody who could accuse them of disliking Jews or Israel: “The danger that anti-Semitism is spread in our country in the form of migrants is imminent. It is our responsibility towards Jews to cut anti-Semitism in Germany.” Well, yes – and what about Jews? Sometimes they are seen as an integral part of our tradition: “the authors of the New Testament were Jews and defined themselves as such” because “they made references to the Old Testament all the time and regarded Jesus as the promised Messiah”. It is obvious that this is a very crude construct – and being this, it doesn’t last very long; when it is said that Jews slaughter in a way, similar to Muslims, then the whole thing immediately is turned against Jews, too. The same goes for the headscarf – Richard C. Schneider has written an interesting article about this already four years ago. Finally, the requests are extended: “Then, the shehitah has to be forbidden for Jews as well. The same rights for everybody!” (all quotes can be found in this discussion). In this manner, it will always be easy to prove that someone is not able and willing to integrate. It is easy to see what lurks behind this attempt to save the West – the same old structure of religious and cultural hatred, an anti-Semitism, clad in new clothes.

Interestingly enough, this sometimes is even too much for those who should share these racist ideologies: Andreas Molau, Head of the modern German Nazi party (NPD) in Lower Saxonia, recently wrote in a statement, Politically Incorrect “tries desperately to dissociate itself from the NPD” and characterises “the hate-sally” of “PI-authors, who regard Muslims as some kind of new subhumans” as “chauvinistc” – probably because they turn their eyes off the main, Jewish (or Hindu or whatever) enemy. For the moment.