Last update - 09:29 27/05/2005
Our man in the territories
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtVty.jhtml?sw=graffiti&itemNo=580935
No one knew until now what veteran television journalist Haim Yavin thought
about the news he has been announcing for more than three decades, and he is
so nonpartisan that one wondered whether he had an opinion of his own at
all. Now, at 72, he is coming out of the closet: "Since 1967 we have been
brutal conquerors, occupiers, suppressing another people," he says in "Yoman
Masa" ("Diary of a Journey"), which he filmed in the West Bank.
For two and a half years, Yavin wandered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
with a small hand-held camera, which he operated himself, without a
technical crew. Here and there he was reviled as the representative of the
hostile leftist media, but in general the settlers spoke to him on the
assumption that he was their man, and justly so: Until now he was everyone's
man. The film he brought back seems intended to salve his conscience: "I
cannot really do anything to relieve this misery, other than to document it,
so that neither I nor those like me will be able to say that we saw nothing,
heard nothing, knew nothing," he says in the film, and in response to a
question asserts: "I did not move left. The country moved right."
He filmed people who waited for hours at checkpoints and says this has no
security justification. Settlers who heard from him about a woman who was
not allowed to get to a hospital and therefore was forced to give birth at a
checkpoint, try to reassure him: If only the Israelis are able to maintain
domestic harmony, "Mohammed" will make coffee both for them and for him.
Yavin responds: "I am not willing to rule another people, not willing for
`Mohammed' to make me coffee." He tells again of the woman who was forced to
give birth at a checkpoint and says, "It is not Jewish, what we are doing
there."
He believes in withdrawal so that a Palestinian state will be established
and peace will come. "That is the only thing I can believe in. Other than
that I have nothing to believe in - only in bloodshed," he tells a female
settler. His thoughts move to the roots of Zionist existence. When he hears
people describe Zionism as an expression of racism and colonialism, he is
outraged, of course, he says, but on returning from the West Bank, he asks
himself what remains of the "true Zionism," the Zionism of peace and equal
rights: the Zionism of the settlements?
This is a good foundation for a discussion of the question of whether there
ever was a "true Zionism" that did not dispossess the Arabs of this land. Be
that as it may, in the first two films in a series of five, Yavin portrays
the settlers as members of a fanatic, insane, racist, despicable, violent
and dangerous sect - more infuriating and despairing than they have ever
been seen in an Israeli film.
It is no wonder that Channel 1 (the state television station, with which
Yavin has been identified for almost 40 years) refused to broadcast the
series. Instead, it will be broadcast starting next Tuesday as the swan song
of Telad on Channel 2: Having failed to win the tender for a renewed
franchise, Telad can allow itself to end its term with something real.
A soldier in uniform told Yavin that the Hebron settlers were inciting him
to shoot and kill Palestinian children. Activist Noam Federman and his wife
tell him on camera that an ultimatum has to be presented to the Arab
residents of Hebron: Either they leave the country immediately, or the
Israel Air Force will bomb their homes. Not far from their home, Yavin
filmed a bit of graffiti on a wall: "Arabs to the crematoria." A Border
Policeman, a muscular, tough-looking guy, says in a heavy Russian accent, "I
am only following orders, I do what I am told." Yavin asserts: "We simply do
not see the Palestinians as human beings."
A Peace Now activist who wanders around in the territories still believes
that the settlers can be evacuated, as France evacuated its citizens from
Algeria, but Yavin does not bring even an iota of hope from the West Bank:
"This hilula [merrymaking] will never be stopped," he states. He recalls,
apparently with sorrow, how Yitzhak Rabin missed the chance to evacuate the
Hebron settlers in the wake of the massacre of Muslim worshipers by Baruch
Goldstein at the Tomb of the Patriarchs in 1994. About 20,000 Hebron
residents were forced to leave their homes then. Yavin feels "sadness and
despair" and says that "maybe it really is preferable to visit Hebron with a
visa."
Yavin believes that the settlers are "wrong" and are also "endangering us,"
but in contrast to some of his friends on the left, he does not hate the
settlers; he even "esteems and likes them," he says. Occasionally he also
tries to "balance" Palestinian bereavement with Israeli bereavement, as
though finding it difficult to discard the usage of the national "we" that
became second nature to him. But not one of the settlers he filmed justifies
his high regard.
Daniella Weiss, one of the original settlers in the West Bank, articulates
for the camera her credo as a mother: We have to raise tough children. She
gives less consideration to life than to the idea. A woman named Orit Struk
reacts to Yavin's arguments with bloodcurdling laughter and tells him about
how a sniper tried to kill her son.
In any properly run country, the welfare authorities would take away their
children.
Yavin, though, also tries to jettison the superficial thesis that pins all
the blame on the settlers themselves. In his film, too, they are the
"masters of the land"; they issue orders to the army and the army obeys. But
Yavin's series shows that the whole society is to blame for the injustices
of the occupation and also for the war crimes it has entailed. "We cluck our
tongues and move on to the gossip columns," he says.
A few of the settlers praise the help they received from two leaders of the
Labor Party, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer and Ehud Barak. One of the original
settlers, Elyakim Haetzni, relates that he has been fighting for a long time
to have one of the squares in Hebron named after Yigal Alon, the father of
the settlements, but Alon's widow objects.
Yavin shows that the left-wing organizations, such as Peace Now, are
effectively moribund and that only a few humanitarian groups remain, such as
Ta'ayush, Physicians for Human Rights, B'Tselem and MachsonWatch, the women
of the checkpoints. The good Israelis in the film are individuals: an
immunologist (Prof. Zvi Bentwich), a lawyer (Shlomo Laker), a journalist
(Haaretz's Gideon Levy), a Jerusalem plumber (Ezra Yitzhak Nawi) and a
soldier in uniform. who says that he could not remain silent "in the face of
such horrors."
Yavin says that his professional integrity will allow him to go on anchoring
Channel 1's nightly "Mabat News Magazine." However, the broadcast of the
series on a commercial channel raises the question of why we even need what
continues to be called "public broadcasting." It's not worth the compulsory
fee. One way or the other, it will be interesting to watch the reactions.
It's possible that attention will not focus on the horrific message of the
films, but only on the fact that Haim Yavin, of all people, made them. If he
is right about the moral insensitivity that prevails in the country, most
viewers may react like the family in the Strauss commercial: Mom, Dad and
the kids are visiting the Safari in Ramat Gan. They see an antelope, say "We
saw it," and hurry on. They see a lion, say "We saw it" - and hurry home to
lick an ice cream bar.
Hitler in underpants
Nearly every newspaper in the world agonized this week over what to do with
the photograph of Saddam Hussein in underpants, and nearly none of them
could resist. They all knew that running the photo would be an affront to
the prisoner's human dignity; therefore it was wrong to publish it: The
"public's right to know" does not justify this voyeurism. Most papers ran a
"photo of a photo" - a photograph of the British tabloid "Sun" showing the
demeaning photo, and thereby, with a wink, pretended to uphold their
professional integrity.
The press and television have often published photographs of famous
prisoners and suspects caught in embarrassing situations - in Israel, too,
from Ofer Nimrodi to Marwan Barghouti. Mordechai Vanunu was secretly taped
and his remarks also found their way to the media. In the 1960s, Adolf
Eichmann was photographed in the privacy of his cell.
That never happened to Adolf Hitler. In his last days, with the Russians
just a few hundred meters from his bunker, a few of his staff tried to
persuade him to leave Berlin. Aware of his status as a national myth, Hitler
decided to commit suicide in the capital of his Reich. He might have been
able to escape, disguise himself and hide in some isolated barn - but in the
end, he would have been discovered. Maybe he would have been photographed in
his underpants.
It is better to die with dignity. For the sake of history.
This week I saw the film "Downfall" at the Smadar movie theater in
Jerusalem. The theater was nearly full; most of the viewers were older
people and seemed to know what should be known about Hitler and Nazism, the
war and the Holocaust. There is no need to present Hitler as a monster to
them.
His last days do not generate sympathy, or even gloating. If he had accepted
the advice of his aides and allowed Germany to surrender earlier, the lives
of many Germans would have been saved, but he gave less consideration to
life than to an idea. He comes across as a mad, Jew-hating tyrant who had
lost all connection with historical reality, but who also controls his
destiny and that of his dog and his wife to the end: He poisons them both
and puts a bullet in his head.
The first half of the film is riveting, with an attention to detail that
creates a feeling that the viewer is truly there with the defeated Hitler.
It responds to people's voyeuristic passion - just like the photo of Saddam
in his underpants.
Here and there, an attempt is made to stimulate compassion in the viewer for
the bitter fate of the residents of Berlin, but as Joseph Goebbels says in
the film, they themselves are to blame for what happened to them: No one
forced them to be Nazis. The film is two and a half hours long; viewers who
went home after the popcorn break did not miss much. The last hour is as
corny as a Bavarian sausage, and the more it continues the more it
deteriorates into tiresome kitsch. This is the moment to move to Chaplin's
"The Great Dictator" or to purchase the second and final volume of Ian
Kershaw's biography of Hitler, which has just been published in Hebrew.
|