Can You Hear Me? Israeli and Palestinian Women Fight for Peace.
Lilly Rivlin, producer, writer and director. Debra Winger,
narrator. 50 minutes, 2006.
If the answer to the question in the film's title is indeed
negative, it is not for lack of passion, dedication and desire of
the women involved in its making. The 50-minute film succeeds in
penetrating the surface of gender subdivision within
Israeli-Palestinian society. By portraying the lives of both
Israeli and Palestinian women involved in the conflict through
multiple interviews and glimpses into their lives, the film begins
to allow the audience a small renewal of hope that, in time, the
seemingly interminable struggle will see a conclusion. It follows
individuals from both sides in their daily lives as well as their
encounters as all strive to be included in, and subsequently assist
in, ending the current conflict.
The place of women within the peace process has been little
explored to date, but as the film points out, it is a growing
factor that could play a significant role. Lilly Rivlin begins her
film by presenting the myriad difficulties facing female peace
activists. Narrator Debra Winger solemnly describes how, prior to
the Oslo period, women were viewed as "traitors and whores" for
wanting to negotiate with the other side. One scene documents an
elderly Palestinian woman climbing awkwardly over a section of the
separation wall, struggling modestly to keep her skirts from
catching on the jagged edges of the barrier. Such images and
commentary elucidate the fact that, even in this respect - desiring
peace and an end to violence within their society - sexuality and
discrimination persist as obstacles in the path of determined
women.
Yet Rivlin's characters are undaunted by such factors aligned
against them in their advocacy work. Declaring adamantly that "if
women ruled the world, we wouldn't have wars," the film presents
another question preceding that of the title: What if women did
have a larger part in forming the policies that affect their
populations? Thus begins a showcase of mothers, wives, sisters,
daughters, grandmothers and individuals that have dedicated much of
their lives to bringing about an end to the Israel-Palestine
conflict. At one point, two of the participants, Leah Shakdiel and
Maha Abu-Dayyeh-Shammas, are shown in a bitter and emotional
argument. Their inability to reach a consensus and evoke intense
reactions from each other is jarring for the audience, yet this is
later put in perspective by the narrator's comment that "one sees
through the right eye and the other the left but they don't pick up
guns."
The film spans the ages, starting with the stories of Sarah and
Hagar, and literally extends well beyond the 50 minutes of screen
time. Following the screening of Can You Hear Me? at the Jerusalem
Film Festival, Rivlin and many of the women interviewed throughout
the film made their way to a packed room for a panel discussion.
The intensity seen on screen, carefully crafted through editing and
production, was equally evident within the close quarters of the
discussion room. The passion was suddenly transformed into the
flesh as the issues and obstacles discussed in the film continued
to be addressed in the forum.
Preaching to the Converted
The women's frustration resulting from their exclusion from
politics is augmented by the frustration of "preaching to the
converted," in that all members of the audience, not surprisingly
largely female, already believed in the necessity for peace. The
dominant aggravation was in the inability to voice the film's
message to politicians. MK Colette Avital encouraged the audience
to build solidarity between the Israeli and Palestinian women's
factions and to present an example of conciliation, lest all hope
be lost for the rest of society.
Abu-Dayyeh-Shammas insisted that the conflict did not lie between
her and Shakdiel as in the argument portrayed so starkly in the
film; rather, it was about the struggle to understand her own
context and the position of the other. She emphasized that the
struggle is a difficult one to reconcile, but giving up is to die.
The rest of the panel continued to insist upon the inclusion of all
religious sects and fundamentalists in discussions, rather than
excluding those that perhaps bear the most influence over the most
radical development in the conflict; the importance of freedom of
movement; and the importance of not allowing the political agenda
to be driven by extremists.
If Women Ruled the World
Yet it was Professor Alice Shalvi, commenting on the possible
successful implementation of UN Resolution 1325, which calls for
the inclusion of women in the negotiation process, who perhaps made
the most striking point that brought silence to the small room: "Do
we succeed at dialogue because we don't really have power? If and
when we do have power, will we behave differently than the men?"
This point drew a paradoxical reaction from the audience who share
the passion of Rivlin's inquiry: "Can you hear me?" It silenced
them. Yet these were not the last words spoken by this panel of
women. These were not the last words heard.
Former MK Professor Naomi Chazan concluded the discussion by
reaffirming her commitment to dialogue and negotiation. She
encompassed the message of the film by elucidating the innate
difference between female and male peace action. She asserted that
we, as women, are different; we are persistent, we don't give up
and we are always one step ahead of the political agenda. She
equated occupation to "obscenity and a blemish on all of our moral
fiber," and declared that if peace is not achieved soon,
"there will be no Israel, no Palestine; there will only be
anarchy."
The panel discussion ended in the same display of passion that the
work itself portrays throughout the introduction and observation of
the women involved. Although the talk concluded with Rivlin - in an
explosion of energy - calling for a commitment to finding lasting
peace, Shalvi's words hung ominously over the boisterous women like
a deafening silence. Would women form different policies if we were
afforded the necessary power for the implementation of our solution
to the conflict, or would such power corrupt absolutely? While this
question is unanswerable in nature before the opportunity arises
for women to have their day at the negotiating table, the fact
remains that the time must come. The passion of the women in the
film and those in the panel discussion assure that this occasion
will arise.
<