Waltz With Bashir

Waltz With Bashir: What does it say about Jewish Identity?
Having an Israeli film nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film is rare, quite rare actually. While it has only happened eight times since the award’s inception, twice have been in the last two years . In 2007, it was Beaufort, a movie about the Israeli Defense Forces unit station in Beaufort, Lebanon. In 2008, it was Waltz With Bashir, an animated documentary film(along with one other in 2008, was the first of its kind) about an ex-soldier’s memory about the 1982 Israeili War in Lebanon. Written and directed by Ari Folman, the film depicts Folman’s journey to recollect his lost memory from the war; he served in the IDF at the age of 19 at the time. Highly praised by many critics for its innovative cinematographic nature and depiction of the psychological effects from war, it has been nominated and collected numerous awards. In addition to the aforementioned Oscar nomination, it won the Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film, an IDA Award for Best Documentary, and an NSFC Award for Best Film. Besides the importance for the Israeli cinematic community, the film is quite significant on the level of Jewish and Israeli identity. In today’s world since the establishment of the State of Israel, when one asks “What defines Jewish Identity?” one common and expected response would include Israel. In one way, this film represents the difference in Jewish identity and Israeli identity. Jews all around the world as well as in Israel live in the shadow of the Holocaust. As presented later, some in the Jewish community have a feeling of victimization, yet as this film presents the IDF’s actions in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, we recognize that Jews as well are subject to human nature.
Ever since the establishment of Israel in 1948 and the Arab-Israeli war of 1948, there have been disagreements between Israel and the PLO. There have been numerous conflicts in the Middle East since, most notably the Six Day war in 1967 and the Yom Kippur War. Tensions began to grow with the rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization during the late 1960’s and 1970’s. In March of 1978, PLO militants hijacked an Israeli civilian bus, killing 34. During this time, it was estimated that there were 15,000-18,000 PLO members living in southern Lebanon in what was referred to as “camps”. After continued terrorist attacks in Israel and Israeli airstrikes into Lebanon, the climax ensued in June of 1982. Called “Operation peace of the Galilee” by the IDF, Israel invaded Lebanon with the purpose of attacking and pushing back at the PLO terrorists in the southern part of the country. A few months later, the PLO withdrew its forces in southern Lebanon, and the two countries reached an agreement for a security zone that both the IDF and Lebanese government would patrol. Later in 1985, Israel completed its withdrawal from the region.
Given the precursors of war, one of the biggest events from the war was the Sabra and Shatila massacre. During this time in Lebanon, there was civil war between the Christian Phalangists, and the PLO Muslims. After the IDF’s invasion into Lebanon, it seized control of two PLO refugee camps in Sabra and Shatila. From this point on, the exact details of the events in the massacre have been and continue to be a hot topic for debate. As portrayed in the movie, once the IDF had control, Phalangist forces came to flush out the rest of Palestinian terrorists; it is estimated that 700-800 were killed. The issue of debate arises when analyzing the IDF’s involvement and responsibility in the massacre. At the time, many Israel citizens were outraged in the possible IDF involvement. After an investigation Supreme Court Justice Kahan dismissed IDF responsibility, yet did acknowledge failures from certain IDF officials.
The documentary film begins as Folman is hearing about a friend’s nightmares from the war; 26 dogs chasing to find him. Folman realizes that since his time in Lebanon in 1982, he has almost no memory of his encounters. He begins to reconnect with old friends he was with in the war, to see if they have the same issues, or to hear their accounts to jog his memory. Besides old friends, he meets with a psychologist and journalist (Ron Ben-Yishai) to get a better understanding of what happened on that day in Sabra and Shatila. With real audio from the discussions, the film jumps back and forth from animations from the encounters with friends, to Folman’s memory of what he saw and other’s stories. The movie gets its title from a scene of fighting in Beirut, where the IDF soldiers are amidst gunfire, one soldier jumps out of the bunker and while continually shooting his gun, does a waltz across the street.
The film was highly reviewed and praised for its artistic talent, but Folman wanted it to be more than artistic. It’s significance can be seen as two-fold(and two-sided), first that it presents a clear picture of the horrors of the violence in the Middle East. Secondly and slightly more controversy, some argue that it paints a different and darker perspective of Jews and victimization. Categorized as an anti-war film, Folman used animation to show the harness of war. While he could have made a more common type documentary of him recounting his war experience, the animated avenue for this film had value. At the Cannes Film Festival he commented, “Because it is animated, I hope that a sixteen year old boy watching 'Waltz With Bashir' in Israel will say, 'I don't want to take any part in this war again” .
In America, we have public issues of debate over the years, especially dealing with going to war. One of the most controversial in history is Vietnam. The war in Lebanon for Israel, mostly due to the Sabra and Shatila massacre drew similar backlash and public protest . Bringing to light what happened on this day was another reason for making the film according to Folman,
“I didn't want you as the audience to go out of the theater after watching 'Waltz With Bashir' and think, yes, this is a cool animation film'. These things happened ... thousands of people were killed, kids were killed, women were killed, old people were killed”
While it is a positive step to bring to light the details of the massacre, the harshness of war and a therapeutic avenue for those involved, one interpretation of the film paints a picture of the perception of the Jewish community. The persecution of the Jews has been documented throughout history, from the destruction of the First and Second Temple, to the Spanish Expulsion, to the Holocaust, to the current turmoil in the Middle East. Professor Salo Baron confirms the idea that Jews feel victim of persecution in an article in The Independent, and discuss how suffering is the center of Jewish life . While this is a common thought of most Jews, the movie brings to light that Jews are subject to human nature. In this instance, the IDF soldiers just watched as the Phalangists killed many Muslims. After a graphic scene in the movie where four soldiers watch from a hill as a Muslim is killed, a soldier asks his higher officer the agenda of the mission. The commander responds that Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister at the time, was aware of the proceedings and it was alright. According to Gideon Levy, a Haaretz correspondent, the movie is a farce of an anti-war film, and shows how even in Israel in current day, some are still looking behind a shadow of victimization, “Oh, how we wept, yet our hands did not spill this blood. Add to this a pinch of Holocaust memories, without which there is no proper Israeli self-preoccupation” . Here, Levy is criticizing the idea of remorse that Folman’s film shows, but not taking blame. While the IDF forces watched and let the massacre happen, they did not take physical actions to stop it; but the viewer is supposed to feel remorse for Folman and the soldiers for the psychological toll it took on them.
While Levy is frustrated that the film is “an act of fraud and deceit, intended to allow us to pat ourselves on the back” , one could interpret the production of the film representing an acceptance of guilt in the event. As movie director, Folman felt compelled to tell this story now, after significant time has passed since the incident(over 25 years). Agreeing on the issue of Folman’s remorse, Jayson Harsin of the Bright Light Film Journal doesn’t see it with such a negative connotation. Additionally, Harsin may have a clue of why Folman made the film, “crimes that have been charged against the perpetrators have been forcefully ‘forgotten’ in some cases through the assassination of key witnesses. For example, Elie Hobeika, the Phalangist commander during the massacre, was murdered in 2002, months after victims had filed a lawsuit in Belgium” (it should be noted that it took Folman four years to complete production of the film). Similarly, Tom Tugend and Ben Harris of JTA.org see a potential meaning of the film, “For a nation that much of the world sees as brutal and militaristic, that's either an astonishing admission or a savvy PR move”
Going back to Folman’s purpose of an “anti-war” film, his intentions are clear to stop the violence in the region. Folman told Haaretz, “In principle I don’t believe movies can change the world, but I’m a great believer in their ability to form small bridges” . A significant step given that the Lebanese Government has banned Israeli movies; there was a private viewing party in Beirut, Lebanon in January 2009. Put on by UNAM, a Lebanese organization focused on documenting the country’s war history, it was shown to 90 individuals. Agreeing with the importance of showing the film, UNAM founder Monika Borgmann mentions, “The subject of this film is a crucial moment in the history of Lebanon, for the history of Israel, for the history of the Palestinians, and for the history of Palestinian life in Lebanon” . Whether or not one agrees with the intention or factualness of the film, it is evident that it does bring to light discussions of the current turmoil between Israel and Palestinians.
When discussing Jewish Identity, most assume Israel is often a part of that. On the first day of a Jewish Folklore class(class call number: FOLK-F359, Spring Semester 2009) at Indiana University, when asked “What is Jewish?”, one of the first responses was Israel. While this may be the perception for most Jews around the world, and specifically in America, Waltz With Bashir shows us that although Israel is a part of Jewish Identity, at the same time it is actually distinctly different from Israel and Israeli Identity. In this sense, the content of the film isn’t as significant as much as the recognition the film received. Given that Israel is the official homeland to the Jews, it wouldn’t be out of the question for Jews in America to support success of the country, even in a cultural sense such as this. In what had become a popular movie for Jews and non-Jews alike to see because of its powerful message, Tugend and Harris mention that “the Israel Consul for cultural affairs in conjunction with a New York Foundation for Jewish Culture produced a viewer guide to be distributed to Jewish groups all across the country”. This guide helped promote the film within the Jewish communities, but also included factual research of the Sabra and Shatila massacre. Although the film can give a sense of pride to Jews to have an Israeli film gaining recognition, a deeper issue is evaluated in terms of Israeli identity. As discussed earlier, most in Jews in America would not recognize the Lebanaon War of 1982, and more specifically the Sabra and Shatila massacre prior to seeing the film. Given that it is an important aspect of Israeli history and Israel is associated with Jews and Jewish identity; clearly there is a lack of education in non-Israeli Jew’s education of Israel. Evidence can been seen in an interview JTA performed with David Saranga, Israeli consul for media and public affairs. In his statement about the purpose of the film, he claims, “the fact that the person who is asking the tough questions is an Israeli shows the morality of the Israeli society and the Israeli soldiers. So it's important to show what are the moral values that the Israelis and the Israeli soldiers have”. The key here is that in his analysis, not once does he mention anything Jewish or relating to Jews, it is all Israeli. Additionally, while it has been presented that those Jews Israel and the soldiers involved feel remorse and feel the repercussions of their action in the massacre; Jews in America do not have similar issue they must confront as a people.
When looking through the lens of Jewish identity and the film’s impact on such, Waltz with Bashir can be interpreted in many different ways. Some see it as an admittance of guilt and remorse for the IDF’s actions in Sabra and Shatila. Conversely, it represents that although Jews have faced hardships and persecution in the past, everyone is subject to the poor aspects of human nature. In the last scene of the film, it shifts from animation of Folman’s memory to real-life pictures from the massacre, all in silence. As shown by the harness of the violence, it is evident that the fighting in the Middle East has an impact on the larger Jewish community and global community.