 "Photo: Carolyn Wilke")
The Muslim Student Association's showing of "The Iron Wall" at the Student Union Theater Tuesday evening attracted about 30 people and a debate about whether the film was anti-Semitic or not followed.
The documentary about the Palestinian and Israeli conflict and rise of Israeli occupation settlements in the West Bank "exposes this phenomenon and follows the timeline, size, population of the settlements, and its impact on the peace process," according to the film's Web site. "This film also touches on the latest project to make the settlements a permanent fact on the ground - the wall that Israel is building in the West Bank and its impact on the Palestinian's peoples."
The first half of the documentary spoke about the policies of the various Israeli government leaders and their adverse affects on Palestine. It focused on the significant increase of the settlements on Palestinian land, which has displaced millions of people and contributed to the rising numbers of refugees and Palestinians living in ghettos. The second half focused on the building of what the International Court of Justice calls a wall (most American media refers to it as a fence, even though the 25-foot concrete wall is double the length of the fence). It also focused on the occupation of the city of Hebron by Israeli troops.
The film looked at the situation from a Palestinian perspective, so there was a definite bias there, but one that discussion leader Elizabeth Aaronsohn, an associate professor of education at Central Connecticut State University, said was counteracted by the American news media's heavy pro-Israel bias.
As a daughter of a Rabbi, she said that, the first time she viewed the film, she was "totally devastated and could not speak," and could not understand the actions of some of the Israelis. She said it is the obligation [of the Jewish community] to speak up.
After a brief overview of the film and director Mohammed Alatar, the floor was opened to the diverse crowd, which ranged from young American Jews to World War II veterans for discussion.
The atmosphere quickly turned tense when a student accused one of the panelists of being anti-Semitic, which turned into a long discussion of whether or not the film itself was anti-Semitic.
The panel member, Stanley Heller, a school teacher who serves as chairman of the Middle East Crisis Committee, is also the Web master for thestruggle.org. During the debate, a student pulled the site up on his phone and read aloud some of the article titles, including "They Murdered 450 Children and Now they Ceasefire" and "Finkelstein Examines Gaza Massacre."
Terrence Smith, an 8th semester business management major, spoke to ease the tension.
"This is a university; we should spend time talking about issues like these," he said. "It is up to the people of UConn to go out and find unbiased views. We should not be pointing fingers. That is not going to solve anything."
The majority of viewers seemed to agree that, although this film was biased in favor of the Palestinians, a fact acknowledged by even the discussion leaders, it gave a view different from that of the commercial media.
"I came to this because you don't hear about this side of things," said Melissa Touma, a 2nd semester anthropology major. "We don't get the same coverage of the Middle East's views, just America's."
As the discussion continued, various students spoke about their personal experiences.
"You have to go [to Hebron]," said Ameer Saleh, an 8th semester transfer student from the region. "Palestinians' doors are welded shut to prevent them from using the roads outside. They have to use their roofs to get somewhere."
A World War II veteran also voiced his belief that the U.S should not be involved in the conflict. This brought Heller to get everyone in the audience to call their representatives to show support for the House Resolution 66, which is supposed to help pull military aid to occupying countries.
As the discussion wined down, Aaronsohn responded to questions about her views toward Israel.
"Dissent is the essence of America," she said. "You are not anti-Israel or anti-Jew because you oppose the Israeli government. In the civil rights movement, we were not anti-American. When we opposed the war against Iraq, we were not anti-American."
Heller and Aaronsohn also agreed that their optimal solution to the conflict would be a two-state policy, and a withdrawal of U.S. aid from Israel.
Be the first to comment on this article!