Chuleenan Svetvilas: Last summer I saw Asher de Bentolila Tlalim’s documentary essay Galoot [Exile] at the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival. In that film, the Israeli director discusses how his living in London gave him a different perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Both of you have been living in Europe for more than 20 years. Do you think that having this distance from Palestine-Israel made it possible for you to make Route 181?

Eyal Sivan: Part of being able to make the documentary is the fact of my not living there everyday. But I am living with what is happening in Israel-Palestine everyday. Everyday I read the Israeli newspaper and talk with people. In Paris, where I am considered a citizen, I read the French papers, I look at the political structure, and suddenly, what is happening [in Palestine-Israel] looks absurd. The fact that I can look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as absurd, makes it easier to deal with.

Michel Khleifi: I think maybe your question is a good one in the beginning of the 21st century. Bertold Brecht talked about the exile in his dialogue of the exiled. He said the exile is the best dialectician because he is between two systems, both in and out of two societies. But now, in this modernity, we must change our approach, our vision.

It is impossible to be free in this situation. The problem is not physically being in Israel-Palestine, Palestine-Israel. The problem is how to stay free…to think with our head. What we discovered is that people in Israel think that they think, but they don’t.

CS: After three-and-a-half hours, the audience in San Francisco had a break. When they returned, at least a third of the audience did not come back. By the time the film was over and the Q&A began, more than half of the audience was gone.

ES: I was surprised that so many people left. When the film is shown without a break, people stay. In Berkeley, it was screened on a Friday afternoon with three short breaks and everybody stayed. The people who stay want to talk, learn, and understand more about what is happening in Palestine-Israel.

The disappointing part is that, in general, there are no real debates any more, which doesn’t have anything to do with the film itself.

MK: When the film first screened in Europe, the Israelis tried to attack us, but now they just don’t participate. The Israeli position is to refuse dialogue.

ES: There is no confrontation any more because we are dealing with two different structures: power on one side and the people who have it, and on the other side are the people. And power doesn’t debate with people any more.

CS: When did you decide to collaborate on this project?

ES: April 2002. There was this horrible moment: the Jenin attack [in which Israeli forces invaded the refugee camp]. Every day, all day long, we had this horror of the brutality of the Israeli army and the suicide attacks. Then we had the impression that a consensus of separation was building and that it was a natural separation—as if Israelis and Palestinians, Jews and Arabs are like cats and dogs. We cannot be together.

MK: The Israeli ideology after the Clinton and Barak negotiations in 1999 was: ‘Palestinians are bad. It’s impossible to make peace with them.’ It was really propaganda.

ES: So we talked about what we could do. Then we decided to make a film together. Things started very quickly. We organized a trip and we had this idea of superimposing two maps. We decided to go back to the first moment where partition was decided as a solution.

MK: We started to think about the wall, and we came to the conclusion that they build many mental walls in Israeli and Palestinian society. We asked ourselves, ‘How did the story of walls begin?’ We found that the United Nations is responsible [for the 1947 Resolution 181 dividing Palestine into an Arab and Jewish State]. Then came the idea to travel along the partition lines.

ES: We wanted to show the relationship between the physical border and the mental borders in the head. The thing was to reveal where the mental borders are coming from. It was a virtual project – following a virtual line with a virtual map, dealing with virtual borders and dealing with mental borders. What is the relationship between this virtual and physical reality?

CS: And the map determined the structure of the film?

Login or signup to read the rest..

If you do not have subscription, you can just login or register, and choose free guest or subscription to read all articles.




Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here