When we look at guilt as a the key element used in the plot of "Bethlehem", we find that it is not easily possible to define victim and perpetrator. Even though the characters were never totally free of their responsibility, they were mostly shown in the context of external forces that were stronger than their individual possibility to chose alternatives. These external forces created moral dilemmas in which the characters were caught up.
Some of these were for example the codex of Arab family honor conflicted with Sanfur's individual decisions and his fathers opinion about his future in context of his brothers death. There was the psychological issue of a double agent and his personal involvement with his asset conflicting with his orders in the context of his career. Also his rationalism was blurred in the face of a hinted sexual relationship with his colleague, his ambition and his responsibility as a father and husband. Some others dilemmas were also informative for the viewer in order to understand the environment of the plot. In an almost documentary storytelling the film tells about the conflict between Palastinian and Bedouins within the leadership of the Palestinian/Arabic/Islamic militia, the fight for political strength of the Palestinian autonomy or the Al-Aqsa resistance facing religious fundamentalism. Taking these and other issues into account - the characters couldn't escape their moral dilemmas even though they wanted. They had little choices and none of the decisions were not understandable. So in the end everyone was guilty, but the damage done was greater than caused by an individual decision.
Therefore this movie shows paradigmatic how the people in this complex conflict can not easily stop ongoing violence. From a western point of view this helps to understand also how naive it is to simply ask the war parties to stop their fighting. It makes us understand that once you are trapped in the spiders net of violence, you cannot stop it from evolving. In this way the movie has done a great job.
But what is the second, less obvious, but more scary conclusion drawn from that? Violence is unavoidable and you cannot escape your destiny. But if this so, and everything is determent – how are you responsible for your actions? Another subject where we know this concept from is Qadar, the concept of predestination in Islam belief, which says that everything is written. Higher forces drive your actions and you cannot escape your destiny - doesn't this therefore make you less guilty? This would question legacy for a democratic legal system used in a warlike world as in this conflict. And also made me see the violence on a daily base in a different light.
On the same when I saw the movie, a stabbing attack occurred in Jerusalem, clumsy executed by two teen aged Palestinian girls. The attempted terrorist attack and the murder shown in the movie are not completely alike, but yet it were both Palestinian teenagers conflicted with brutal and archaic murder. I would never justify terrorism, but in the light of what I have seen in the movie, I would say it gave me an idea of how people are driven to those acts. It was the first time I ha the glimpse of an idea how people could chose to do such things to others. I wouldn't say I feel empathy, but still I doubt that these people would have chosen their destiny if they had a real choice. And this is what I mean with scary conclusion – how should a society and legacy deal with that, if wrong is done to you, but the cause is not to be found in an individual guilt?
The end, which in itself provides a strong symbolic picture (a master is killed by its tool / father is killed by its son) shows us what is left: Archaic violence is what is left. Archaic violence as a cry for help as it exceeds all necessary measures.
Some of these were for example the codex of Arab family honor conflicted with Sanfur's individual decisions and his fathers opinion about his future in context of his brothers death. There was the psychological issue of a double agent and his personal involvement with his asset conflicting with his orders in the context of his career. Also his rationalism was blurred in the face of a hinted sexual relationship with his colleague, his ambition and his responsibility as a father and husband. Some others dilemmas were also informative for the viewer in order to understand the environment of the plot. In an almost documentary storytelling the film tells about the conflict between Palastinian and Bedouins within the leadership of the Palestinian/Arabic/Islamic militia, the fight for political strength of the Palestinian autonomy or the Al-Aqsa resistance facing religious fundamentalism. Taking these and other issues into account - the characters couldn't escape their moral dilemmas even though they wanted. They had little choices and none of the decisions were not understandable. So in the end everyone was guilty, but the damage done was greater than caused by an individual decision.
Therefore this movie shows paradigmatic how the people in this complex conflict can not easily stop ongoing violence. From a western point of view this helps to understand also how naive it is to simply ask the war parties to stop their fighting. It makes us understand that once you are trapped in the spiders net of violence, you cannot stop it from evolving. In this way the movie has done a great job.
But what is the second, less obvious, but more scary conclusion drawn from that? Violence is unavoidable and you cannot escape your destiny. But if this so, and everything is determent – how are you responsible for your actions? Another subject where we know this concept from is Qadar, the concept of predestination in Islam belief, which says that everything is written. Higher forces drive your actions and you cannot escape your destiny - doesn't this therefore make you less guilty? This would question legacy for a democratic legal system used in a warlike world as in this conflict. And also made me see the violence on a daily base in a different light.
On the same when I saw the movie, a stabbing attack occurred in Jerusalem, clumsy executed by two teen aged Palestinian girls. The attempted terrorist attack and the murder shown in the movie are not completely alike, but yet it were both Palestinian teenagers conflicted with brutal and archaic murder. I would never justify terrorism, but in the light of what I have seen in the movie, I would say it gave me an idea of how people are driven to those acts. It was the first time I ha the glimpse of an idea how people could chose to do such things to others. I wouldn't say I feel empathy, but still I doubt that these people would have chosen their destiny if they had a real choice. And this is what I mean with scary conclusion – how should a society and legacy deal with that, if wrong is done to you, but the cause is not to be found in an individual guilt?
The end, which in itself provides a strong symbolic picture (a master is killed by its tool / father is killed by its son) shows us what is left: Archaic violence is what is left. Archaic violence as a cry for help as it exceeds all necessary measures.