I really liked the two stories of this series, if only because the past one is an almost forgotten piece of history in terms of films and TV series whereas the present story is told in a quite unbiased line; at least, as much unbiased as any story dealing with such conflict can be.
While I write this review, Israel is striking Gaza with their planes, ships and artillery while Gaza is striking Israel with their rockets. It is very difficult to adopt an objective point of view of the conflict; once you get into it, you always have a tendency to lean towards one side or the other. "The Promise" criticises present-day Israeli policies in the occupied territories as well as the old days terrorist actions of the Irgun (a Jewish terrorist group), but it also creates good Israeli characters and others full of inner contradictions and moral conflicts. The Palestinian side goes cleverly untouched, with only a couple of characters with some meaning in the story. So, as a whole, I don't think it's biased at all. It just tells some uncomfortable truths.
There are several striking similarities between the times of the Mandate and present-day Palestine. To begin with, Israelis achieved independence thanks to terrorism, something that Palestinians are now somehow imitating. You can choose to call them "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", but you'll have to choose the same term for both, and this is an uncomfortable truth. Other examples which have a very clear resemblance with present days Palestine resistance: Irgun kidnapping soldiers or hiding weapons in schools. All that part of the story has been forgotten for such a long time that, once rediscovered, one needs to review and update his former ideas about the conflict.
Now, about the differences. The British Mandate is portrayed as a peace-keeper force supported by international law, whereas Israel in the occupied territories are portrayed as a brutal force acting against all international laws. However uncomfortable they might be, these differences are essentially true, uncomfortable truths once again. The Nakba ethnic cleansing (recently admitted and explored by Israeli historians), the suicide bombers, the deep division among the Palestinian ranks, the wall dividing Palestinian populations, the illegal settlements in the occupied territories, the underlying racism of Israeli society... all of them uncomfortable truths. Even the British abandoning the land even knowing of the massacres that were about to happen (it reminded me of the Dutch in Srebrenica). No one is left untouched in "The Promise".
By the way, to conclude, what I liked the most was the extremely beautiful parallelism between the broken promise of the protagonist (Len) to protect the Arab child and the broken promise of the British troops to protect the Arab population. I somehow think that Len's tears at the end of the film were even more related to that second broken promise than to the first. A beautiful moment, I must admit.
While I write this review, Israel is striking Gaza with their planes, ships and artillery while Gaza is striking Israel with their rockets. It is very difficult to adopt an objective point of view of the conflict; once you get into it, you always have a tendency to lean towards one side or the other. "The Promise" criticises present-day Israeli policies in the occupied territories as well as the old days terrorist actions of the Irgun (a Jewish terrorist group), but it also creates good Israeli characters and others full of inner contradictions and moral conflicts. The Palestinian side goes cleverly untouched, with only a couple of characters with some meaning in the story. So, as a whole, I don't think it's biased at all. It just tells some uncomfortable truths.
There are several striking similarities between the times of the Mandate and present-day Palestine. To begin with, Israelis achieved independence thanks to terrorism, something that Palestinians are now somehow imitating. You can choose to call them "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", but you'll have to choose the same term for both, and this is an uncomfortable truth. Other examples which have a very clear resemblance with present days Palestine resistance: Irgun kidnapping soldiers or hiding weapons in schools. All that part of the story has been forgotten for such a long time that, once rediscovered, one needs to review and update his former ideas about the conflict.
Now, about the differences. The British Mandate is portrayed as a peace-keeper force supported by international law, whereas Israel in the occupied territories are portrayed as a brutal force acting against all international laws. However uncomfortable they might be, these differences are essentially true, uncomfortable truths once again. The Nakba ethnic cleansing (recently admitted and explored by Israeli historians), the suicide bombers, the deep division among the Palestinian ranks, the wall dividing Palestinian populations, the illegal settlements in the occupied territories, the underlying racism of Israeli society... all of them uncomfortable truths. Even the British abandoning the land even knowing of the massacres that were about to happen (it reminded me of the Dutch in Srebrenica). No one is left untouched in "The Promise".
By the way, to conclude, what I liked the most was the extremely beautiful parallelism between the broken promise of the protagonist (Len) to protect the Arab child and the broken promise of the British troops to protect the Arab population. I somehow think that Len's tears at the end of the film were even more related to that second broken promise than to the first. A beautiful moment, I must admit.