Useless conflicts outside the voice of Hind Rajab

Were it not for the enormous number of victims in Gaza and the apocalyptic scenes of destruction in various cities of the Strip, we would say that Gaza itself represents hope: proof that it will not perish and that a hundred years of injustice will not be able to condemn it to oblivion.

Everything around continues to demonstrate, day after day, for the past two years, that it is possible to massacre a people and persecute them from one place to another, amidst complete despair in the face of the absence of any serious action to help the victims, those who still resist among the ruins.

The revolt on American campuses, which spread to European cities, proved that an extraordinary new generation is being born in the world, refusing to accept injustice. And not only in universities: consider the Palestinian Action group, which persists despite being banned by an unjust court order, while Britons defy the ban regardless of imprisonment or sentencing.

The reactions are numerous, including those of Hollywood stars, who have deviated from canned speeches and pre-arranged festival routines to appear as symbols and chant slogans in solidarity with Palestine. Where does such magnificence fit in? Isn't it also part of hope? And, ultimately, thanks to Gaza?

The 23-minute standing ovation following the screening of The Voice of Hind Rajab The recent Venice Film Festival was also a resounding cinematic event—a vote in favor of justice. And, fundamentally, according to the news that poured from Venice, Gaza was not absent from the festival's activities or its surroundings. Hind Rajab, the Palestinian child killed with his family in Gaza, was present in the cinematic debate even before reaching the red carpet, from the inclusion of the film in the program, if not from the moment it became known that the talented Tunisian director Kaouther Ben Hania intended to make it from the voice of Hind Rajab—as we heard in those painful phone calls to the Palestinian Red Crescent, alone in a bombed car, surrounded by the bodies of his martyred family.

Protest

The film recently won the Silver Lion, the second highest award at the Venice Film Festival. This is undoubtedly a significant achievement for the work, the director, and Gaza. The Golden Lion was awarded to Jim Jarmusch's American independent film, Father, Mother, Sister, BrotherMany couldn't believe that a work that had received such acclaim and media coverage could be passed over in favor of another. Immediately, protests erupted from critics and enthusiasts alike.

A film critic from an Arab television network did not hesitate to state that political stance was what prevented... The Voice of Hind Rajab to win the Golden Lion, arguing that "the political bias of Western decision-makers is, for the millionth time, limiting the Palestinian issue."

Thus, while we consider it an achievement that a film about Gaza has reached this level of reception, controversy, and media coverage, it can be argued that politics prevented it from going even further. The director herself commented, after the award announcement, that the winner Jim Jarmusch was her role model in filmmaking. In fact, just days before, Jarmusch had declared his disappointment with the decision of the streaming platform Mubi, which accepted funding from an investment fund with ties to Israel. The company had received US$100 million from Sequoia Capital, a US company whose portfolio includes the Israeli defense company Kela. This link led Jarmusch and other artists to sign a protest petition.

List of problems

On the other hand, the film — and, in particular, its director — was the target of a vile attack, in an article that began with the phrase: “If an opportunistic film had a homeland, The Voice of Hind Rajab "It would be its capital." According to the review, signed by a survivor of the Armenian genocide: "After the rape in In the Palm of a Demon's Hand, the Syrian asylum in The Man Who Sold His Back and Salafist jihadism in Olfa's Daughters, Tunisian director Kaouther Ben Hania, a specialist in exploring trending topics"Then she moves on to a new quagmire: the Israeli aggression against Gaza. Thus, she continues navigating between guaranteed themes, those that major festivals welcome with open arms and for which they roll out the red carpet."

It is the right of any critic to deconstruct a film and reach whatever conclusion they wish, but here it is evident that the priority was to disqualify the result, which sounds more like an insult. A conclusion completely opposite to the heroic battle waged by the Tunisian director. After all, who said that Palestine—and Gaza in particular—is a guaranteed cause at international festivals? People have been arrested in the West for displaying mere symbols that, until recently, went unnoticed. Just remember the persecutions in Germany, at the Berlinale (Berlin Film Festival), of the writer Adania Shibli, whose tribute was canceled at the Frankfurt Book Fair after the escalation of the war in Gaza. Let's also remember the Hollywood stars abandoned by their own production companies because of their public positions on Palestine.

The list of prohibitions and persecutions is long — what is hidden far outweighs what is visible. Not even the International Criminal Court escaped US sanctions for accusing Israel of genocide, nor the pressure and persecution exerted by Israeli intelligence against its prosecutor, Karim Khan.

Therefore, when they ask for a “list” of issues that could be addressed without offending the established order, until they feel satisfied, it becomes clear: this is a repugnant statement. If there is nothing substantial to say against a film that has gained recognition in the West, then simply say that it was accepted because it suited Western agendas—as we have heard so many times. Sometimes for its flirtation with feminism, sometimes for its proximity to the Holocaust, and this time because of Gaza!

Here and now

Although the director addresses a hot and current theme in each work (the Arab Spring, Syria, jihadism, Gaza, etc.), the creator's role is to be an influential part of a contemporary discussion that concerns everyone. Themes outside the present have always been described as elusive, and the escape of creative works to the past is often seen as a form of devaluation. We want Shakespeare because he is contemporary: directors strive to extract something from his work that intersects with the present and upon which all their work rests. Perhaps the first critical question an analyst should ask is: Why now? What does this film, or that play, mean here and now?

The critic doesn't limit himself to the Tunisian director, but also accuses the entire audience when describing the 23 minutes that impressed the audience and the media, saying: “Behind the thunderous applause, the teary eyes, the glittering dresses and the support of liberal society, lies a pressing question: to what extent can the tragedy of Gaza be exploited without falling into the trap of commercialization?” And he answers: “The film exploits the helplessness of the Arab and the West's need to 'wash away its shame' through the cinema screen.”

Criticism would only be acceptable and open to discussion if it avoided the ready-made accusation of opportunism. Many questions could have been raised: why didn't the film remain just a documentary? Is the impact of the child's real voice diminished when reused in a narrative film? What implications do the dialogues and character development have?

All these issues belong to the realm of cinematic reflection and undoubtedly enrich the experience, making the voice of Hind Rajab—the martyred child of Gaza—even more powerful and significant. The critic's gaze, however, may only shift when Ben Hania is accused of antisemitism and persecuted by slander here and there; it may even ignore when she is deprived of funding by this or that institution, as she may often find herself excluded without anyone needing to explain.