Who Are the Palestinian Bit-Players in ‘Body of Lies’?

by on October 20, 2008 10
0sharesFacebook
0tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

By James North
There’s one scene in the just-released film Body of Lies that shows perfectly why the American popular understanding of the Middle East is so distorted.  Much of the big-budget film is set in Amman, Jordan. Leonardo DiCaprio is a CIA agent with something of a conscience; he becomes interested in Aisha, an Iranian nurse who also volunteers in a Palestinian refugee camp. Aisha invites him to dinner at her sister’s house, and the sister challenges him about the American war in Iraq. He restrains himself at first, but then passionately attacks the Iraqi insurgents who are killing their fellow Iraqis with car bombs. Later, incredibly, Aisha apologizes to DiCaprio for her sister’s outburst.
The film is based on a novel by David Ignatius,
the Washington Post columnist who is also an old college friend of
mine. I haven’t read the book yet, but on balance the film is certainly
not simplistically pro-American. The main villain, played effectively
by an overweight Russell Crowe,
is DiCaprio’s CIA boss; he is ruthless and insensitive, and he uses
high-tech spy drones to hunt "terrorists" ineffectively. He is
contrasted with Hani, the head of Jordanian intelligence, basically an
honorable man, who is more successful by using trust and patience. Hani
is one of the "good Arabs," who have been part of the Western
imagination ever since the time of Lawrence of Arabia.
But let’s raise an unasked question. Who are all these Palestinian refugees we see all-too-briefly? By one reckoning, two-thirds of all Jordanians are of Palestinian origin; why are they in Jordan?
I personally do not believe that Israeli injustice to Palestinians
explains all the violence in the region, or the attacks in Europe and
America. Those British Muslims who blew themselves up on London
transport in 2005, for instance, had other and complicated motivations.
But how can you make a 2-hour, $70 million film about violence in the
Middle East and never mention Israel once?

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel/Palestine, Nakba, US Policy in the Middle East

{ 10 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Richard Witty says:
    October 20, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    "But how can you make a 2-hour, $70 million film about violence in the Middle East and never mention Israel once?"

    I didn't see the movie.

    Why would you presume that Israel should be mentioned in EVERY political or dramatic movie on the middle east.

  2. roGER says:
    October 20, 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Well Syriana managed the same trick – no mention of Israel at all.

    "Why would you presume that Israel should be mentioned in EVERY political or dramatic movie on the middle east."

    I don't reckon that's the demand Richard, old sport. The demand is that Israel is mentioned more than once – that would be 'significant' progress.

  3. anon says:
    October 20, 2008 at 12:26 pm

    Why would a movie filled with Palestinian refugees
    never mention Israel?

  4. Richard Witty says:
    October 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    If it was unimportant to the plot, it shouldn't.

  5. round character says:
    October 20, 2008 at 1:31 pm

    he becomes interested in Aisha, an Iranian nurse who also volunteers in a Palestinian refugee camp.

    RW: If it was unimportant to the plot, it shouldn't.

    flat character: Absolutely! Only a utterly prejudiced mind will associate Israel in this context.

  6. syvanen says:
    October 20, 2008 at 2:00 pm

    "But how can you make a 2-hour, $70 million film about violence in the Middle East and never mention Israel once?"

    Because they want a return on the $70 million.

  7. higginslads says:
    October 20, 2008 at 2:09 pm

    "Why would you presume that Israel should be mentioned in EVERY political or dramatic movie on the middle east."

    "Among ourselves it must be clear that there is no place in our country for both peoples together… The only solution is Eretz Israel, or at least the western half of Eretz Israel, without Arabs, and there is no other way but to transfer the Arabs from here to the neighboring countries, transfer all of them, not one village or tribe should remain…" -Joseph Weitz, Deputy Chairman of the Board of directors of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) from 1951 to 1973, former Chairman of the Israel Land Authority

    "Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahial arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population." -Moshe Dayan

    "It is a mistake to draw a moral line between Israel and the Occupied Territories; it is all occupied territory. The 1967 war, as a result of which Israel conquered and occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank of the Jordan River, and the Sinai Peninsula, was a continuation of the process that began in 1948. It will be drearily familiar to any who know the history of the displacement of the Indians from the lands they occupied in North America. Today it would be called “ethnic cleansing.” -Noel Ignatiev

  8. anon says:
    October 20, 2008 at 2:17 pm

    Hey, how about Witty as the hero of High Noon?

  9. Todd says:
    October 20, 2008 at 2:19 pm

    "If it was unimportant to the plot, it shouldn't."

    We fought a war over bogus Al Qaida ties and WMD claims, and it is against custom to mention Israel and Palestinian refugees in the same breath unless they are actively engaging one another? I'd say that Israel is more important to the plot than an imaginary character's fake southern accent.

  10. JOHN DICKERSON says:
    October 22, 2008 at 9:51 pm

    "But how can you make a 2-hour, $70 million film about violence in the Middle East and never mention Israel once?"

    Posted by: syvanen – "Because they want a return on the $70 million."

    Yes, a U.S. filmmaker would be asking for trouble to mention Israel (explicitly or implicitly) in any way that is not undisputably complimentary. Remember the Redgraves?