Issuu on Google+

Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

Sylwia Wodzińska

Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films ABSTRACT The establishment of Israel in 1948 as well as the wars following it and the occupation of Palestine were buttressed by a powerful discursive tool, Orientalism. Orientalism, first described by Edward W. Said, refers to othering the Others by presenting them as backward and irrational and thus in this context dangerous or in need of colonisation. This is clearly visible in the Israeli propaganda films from the Pioneers’ times. In this paper I will elaborate on this kind of discourse, pointing out that the stereotypical depiction of the Arab has its roots in Israel’s Pioneer period.

KEYWORDS Films, Israel, Orientalism, Othering, Palestine, Pioneers

Introduction The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for more than 70 (or 2000) years, and it is as complex as one can imagine. Taking into account its convoluted relationship with the present and the past, with Islam and Judaism, and with international and intercultural politics, it is almost impossible to judge it in black-and-white categories. The peace process – if we can speak of any – takes much time and slow steps, each year increasing costs, fatalities and the tension between the two nations sharing the land. Paradoxically, the Holy Land and the Holy City are the places where the tension is most noticeable.

One of the most chilling aspects of the ongoing conflict is the Israeli occupation of Palestine (see p. 44 for a clarification of “Palestine”), which is perceived by many to be part of a policy of colonisation. The political, historical and cultural claims of the Israeli side are followed by a certain mode of public discourse which aims to justify this situation. One may draw a parallel between this and 20th-century colonialism and its discursive tool, namely Orientalism. In both cases the colonisers are portrayed in a positive light in contrast to the colonised, the language is emotionally loaded, expressive and imaginative and there is a heavy deployment of black-andwhite clashing categories (modern/backward, civilised/uncivilised, rational/emotional, etc.). Analysing Israeli archival film recordings from the Pioneer period, I will examine different layers of the image of “the Arab” in the Israeli public discourse legitimising the occupation and contrast it with the theory of Orientalism. The films were chosen from the virtual library of the Hebrew University and are available on its YouTube channel (see http://www.youtube.com/user/HebrewUniversity). Owing to the large number of these films, I chose the research material on the basis of a keyword search (“Palestine”, “pioneer”). I watched 20 films, of which I selected eight for the analysis, due to their appropriateness to the topic (see Bibliography). I take these to be a representative sample. The films vary in length from seven to 58 minutes and were made in the 1930s (before the establishment of the state), 1948 (the state had been created and was involved in wars with the surrounding countries), the 1950s (building the new country and new society, the occupation of Palestine started) and 1968 (the myths present in previous films are still visible here). The purposes of the films were numerous: from fund-raising (abroad) and propaganda (both abroad and in Israel) to the creation of Israeli identity. Moreover, as Baruch Kimmerling points out, the propaganda representation and reinterpretations of the so-called Jewish tradition (observable in the films) served as “a powerful recruitment engine for Jewish immigration to Zion” (2005:4). Therefore, the films are persuasive, emotive and intended for a large audi-


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

ence. Although made across a time span of forty years, by different producers and directors and for different audiences, all of them contain the very same elements, on which I will elaborate.

Orientalism The leadership needs to justify the colonisation of the already inhabited lands not only at the political level but also ata linguistic, discursive one. Apparent evil, inglorious decisions and infamous steps need to be acknowledged by the public opinion, and one of the ways towards that is the decontextualisation of the occupied and the construction of their new “self” in the media and public discourse of the occupier. As Yaacov Yadgar put it, this new identity, however farfetched, presents “the Other” (the occupied) as “not only deserving but even as calling for or needing occupation” (2003: 1).In this sense, “we” have every right and even every duty to colonise “them” since they are both dangerous and backward and thus either they will attack us or they will not develop. Hence, occupation stops being an evil and becomes a necessity, and in a way a moral deed. One of the analyses of such discourse is Edward Said’s Orientalism (1978). The author examines the ways “the Other” is created – not by itself, but on its behalf by the more modern, rational and democratic “us”. In other words, the distinction is made between the civilised “West” and the uncivilised, barbaric “East”, which in this context needs to be colonised for the sake of guaranteeing the most basic human values. “The East” is thus spoken for and perceived as an inferior culture (if one can even speak of any), and “the West” is associated with modernity, education (rationality and humanism) and progress. One of the examples of the Orientalist discourse in use is Israeli Society by Shmuel N. Eisenstadt (1967). This analysis of the young Israeli society depicts Israel as a heroic, modern country built from scratch, that tries to “absorb” and modernise the immigrants from underdeveloped coun43

tries and that has to defend its barriers from numerous enemies who may seek to put an end to this. This book is a neat combination of sociology, ideology and mythology with not much scientific data. The myth of the modern Israeli man bringing civilisation to many has been present from the very beginning of the Israeli state up until now. Orientalist discourse in Israel has gained much scholarly attention (e.g. Edward Said, Yaacov Yadgar, Baruch Kimmerling, Dimitry Shumsky, Aziza Khazzoom). The ways in which Arabs are portrayed in the public discourse have been examined by many scholars: there are specific courses on this subject at the Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University, and the majority of conferences on Israeli identity have sections focused on this image. What is noticeable is that these lectures, publications and sessions are in almost all cases devoted to the present day, neglecting the fact that Israel has a long tradition of orientalising its neighbours or – as some postZionists would put it – their “hosts”. This is evident in the abovementioned films from Israel’s pioneer period. In her essay Writingagainst the Culture (1991), Lila AbuLughodstates that identity is built on the comparison with “the Other” – we are “us” because we are not “them”. Such oppositions help us to establish our own self, and in this way they are helpful, but by simultaneously othering others it is very easy to oversimplify and undervalue certain cultural phenomena. Similarly, according to Gerd Baumann(2006),the Orientalist discourse is built of binary oppositions more advanced than simply “good/bad”. The categories refer to different layers of life, for example social, cultural, political. The general attitude is that – as he puts it – “what is good in us is [still] bad in them, but what got twisted in us [still] remains straight in them”. The values of Westerners, then, are democracy, security, rationality, enlightenment and technology, as compared to the irrational, superstitious and backward East. On the other hand, the East is spontaneous, luxuriant and mystical, whereas the West is rather calculating, sober and materialistic. This grammar of identity/alternity serves in “selfing” one’s

www.palimpsest.socjologia.uj.edu.pl

nr 6, czerwiec 2014


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

own self and othering the alien one, which is part of the process of cultural self-seeking.

The Israelis’self-image The films portray Israelis as, above all, modern citizens of tomorrow. “Modern” is understood as meaning “a few steps further than the rest”, and “the civilised on the harsh land of the backward”. They are not ordinary inhabitants of some country – they are already citizens, being aware of their relationship and responsibilities towards “their” country and “their” land, taking care of those miserable Bedouins and protecting themselves from the enemies. As for “tomorrow”, in each film it is said at least once that Israel (thanks to or in spite of its long biblical tradition) is already modern and will become even more so, being an exemplary country for the rest of the world. These three features are most often presented in comparison to the backward Arabs living in Palestine. Different themes are applied to present, portray and emphasise the modern image of Israel. The first one is the Negev desert – the symbol of the urbanisation of Palestine – and water pipes – the symbol of technology. Let us focus on a few examples from Challenge of the Negev. This film tells the story of the urbanisation of the Negev desert and the modernisation of Be’er-Sheva. The narration and montage are based on very symbolic and oversimplified examples of modern Israelis and backward Arabs. Considering Arabs, we can see illiterate Bedouins living in tents, pristine landscapes, camels, sandy tracks and old pictures of the underdeveloped city of Be’er-Sheva (the capital of the Negev region). The words most commonly used while talking about the Arabs are: “wastelands” (which appears six times), “traditional” (five times), and “nothing” (eight times). Such harsh descriptions are in all cases preceded by examples of how the place has developed now that the Israelis have taken care of it. What we see are hardworking communities, bustling cities, 44

aeroplanes, roads, water pipes, machines, and happy, friendly individuals who are either working, studying, reading or spending time on common pastimes. Not only this, but we are also informed about what we see: “to work hard is not easy under the scorching sun”, “the most modern machines, the most skilful operators”, “transforming it into fertile soil”, “the new Be’er-Sheva”, “industry devices”, “(independent) economy”. There are whole passages that deserve attention at this point:  “Three years ago, Be’er-Sheva, the capital of Negev, was nothing but an Arab town. Now Be’er-Sheva is becoming the administrative and economic centre of the Negev” – here old pictures of Be’er-Sheva are contrasted with its present “modern” appearance; worth noticing is, however, the use of “nothing but an Arab town”.  “During the centuries the Negev produced nothing and signified nothing, camels and caravans crossed by the narrow trails and it was enough. Today there must be a road. In modern times a road is needed”. Here in the background the viewer sees images of the desert and caravans preceded smoothly by hardworking Israelis constructing the road. “[S]ignified nothing” is typical of the Western exaggeration – it signified nothing to the Western world, yet not to its inhabitants.  “Thirst is the eternal enemy here for the Bedouin Arab men, who struggle and die in the endless combat for the well. The old methods of the Bedouins are not sufficient for the modern agriculture” – thirsty Arab men, scorching sun, Bedouins and then water pipes, irrigation system, dams built by the settlers; “old” versus “modern”, emotionally-loaded key words: “struggle”, “enemy”, “die”, “combat” are contrasted with the liberating modernity and the new agriculture. The narration applies different methods of visualisation of the sudden technological boost. This is not only at the level of keywords or emotive pictures, but also makes use of numbers and scholarly sounding utterances. While talking about Eilat, the future holiday resort, numbers are mentioned: 300 km from Tel Aviv, which takes two days to cover via “the

www.palimpsest.socjologia.uj.edu.pl

nr 6, czerwiec 2014


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

ancient caravan trails of Salomon” or just one hour by a modern aeroplane. Also, while an irrigation system and water pipes are being shown, a serious voice tells us about “water measurement”, the “scientific, pragmatic approach” and “experimentation”. The Negev and water pipes theme also appear in other films. In Adventure in Israel phrases such as: the “first crops in 2000 years” and “even the desert can give fruits” are heard while images of the water pipes are screened. These themes also appear in This Is Our Valley and The Land of Promise. These two developments are presented as the milestones of civilisation. Apart from these, the building of Tel Aviv is put forward as another of the settlers’ achievements. The city of Tel Aviv appears in all eight films, even if just for a second. The Jews are credited for “changing sandy wastes into busy streets” (The Land of Promise), making the country “flourish, nurtured by Israel’s independence” (Israel Journey), and “restoring the fame” of the land (This Is Our Valley). In Adventure in Israel we see the hustling and bustling, lively streets of the city as the narrator says that one can encounter “faces speaking every language” there. Therefore, Tel Aviv is not only modern and fast-growing, but it is also multicultural, with its community of happy newcomers – previously homeless Jews from “all over the world”. To present the magnetic power of the city, symbols such as Theodor Hertzl, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, King David and the Hebrew language are used. All that takes place with the background information echoing that only 40 years ago there was nothing but desert there. It is the Jews who take care of this land, turning it into “the city of tomorrow”, as is said in Israel Journey: “in 1911 the valley was a pile of waste, but due to the efforts of the Jewish National Fund and the Jews of the world the barren soil was saved”. Thus, the conclusion is simple: the Jews save the soil and – as has been already said – liberate the people. Since “the Jews can be the most efficient healers of the soil”, they are “changing the Land of Promise into the Land of Fulfilment” (The Land 45

of Promise). As the film goes on, we are told that “it is a record of the struggles and triumphs of the hundreds of thousands of Jews who are lifting Palestine back into the ranks of the great civilised countries, preparing a homeland for hundreds of thousands of other Jews now homeless throughout the world and thereby restoring the scattered Jewish Nation to a life of freedom and creativity”. This passage is remarkable in that it embraces all of the major themes: the return of the Jews to their homeland (thus, the land does not belong to the Arabs), uncivilised Palestine versus modern countries, the country of the future, the Jewish Nation, the struggle and hard work to revive the homeland, the sense of community and the values of freedom and creativity. The self-image of the Israelis in the films is purely Orientalist, as it is based on a contrast between the indigenous people(s), referring to popular cultural myths, and the colonisers, who are presented as Western, modern, rational, pragmatic and democratic.

The image of the Palestinians, war and colonisation Before starting the analysis it is crucial to point out that the word “Palestinian(s)” appears in none of these films; instead, the filmmakers refer to the indigenous people as Arabs or Bedouins. There are numerous reasons for this. Before the British Mandate, Palestine used to be part of the Ottoman Empire, and after its downfall “Palestinians” in British discourse referred to the inhabitants of that region, regardless of their ethnicity. Also, before the establishment of the State of Israel (1948), the terms "Palestine" and "Palestinian" in US or Jewish discourse referred to Palestinian Jews. However, this changed after the state was created. For instance, the English-language newspaper The Palestine Post, founded by Jews in 1932, changed its title in 1950 to The Jerusalem Post (Historical Jewish Press). Palestinian Jews started identifying themselves as Israelis. In 1968 the Palestinian National Charter specifically defined “Palestinians”

www.palimpsest.socjologia.uj.edu.pl

nr 6, czerwiec 2014


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

as “those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine, regardless of whether they were evicted from it or stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father – whether in Palestine or outside it – is also a Palestinian”.Despite that, from the Israeli perspective the inhabitants of Palestine were just Arabs, and even nowadays many Israelis claim that “the Palestinian people” or “the Palestinian nation” are solely invented and farfetched concepts. Given that the concepts of “nation” and “nationality” are relatively new, it may also be seen that the terms “the Jewish people” or “Israelis” are not necessarily valid. Nowadays, in the Israeli massmedia the use of “Arab” is still more frequent than “Palestinian” in numerous contexts. For the purpose of this paper, I will use both “Arabs” and “Palestinians” as defined by the Palestinian National Charter, although the definition itself appeared later than the films discussed here were made. Labelling the Palestinian people as “Arabs” carries two dangers. The first one is the unification of all the Arab nations, thus putting e.g. Egyptians, Syrians and Palestinians into one category, making them one cultural-political body describable by the same features and phenomena and driven by the same motivations. Simultaneously, such a label undermines the legitimacy of their claim to the land and underestimates their national identity. Having said that, it seems right to take a closer look at the image(s) of the Palestinians in the films. There are two distinct ways of presenting them: let us call them “urban” and “rural”. The “urban” image reflects the life and daily rituals of the Palestinians living in the cities, and the “rural” stands for the Bedouins living in the desert. Although cities such as Haifa, Acco, Jaffa and Jerusalem were inhabited in significant numbers by Palestinians

and the Bedouin population has never been overwhelmingly large,1 it is more possible to encounter a film with scenes featuring Bedouins than with “urban” Palestinians. The opening scenes of The Land of Promise present Bedouin caravans, desert and Arabs working manually with old-fashioned machinery (e.g. manual mill). The narrator informs us that “once, when Jews used to live here, it was a centre of a great civilisation. When the Jews were driven out, the land gradually declined”, and that “with the most efficient modern machinery the Jews are bringing back to Palestine its long neglected fruitfulness”. It is notable that the cast of the film are credited as “the Jewish People Rebuilding Palestine”. What one can learn from this is not only that the Arabs and their agriculture are rather primitive but also that they cannot take proper care of their heritage or the land left to them. In other words, they brought the former culture and the(ir) land to decline. This, on the other hand, is buttressed by the images of Arabs smoking nargile, handcrafting, working manually or driving camels contrasted to the hardworking Jews who spend their time either on studies (their artefacts are books) or praying, working with the most modern technologies and driving cars. Another film, This is our Valley, is more explicit, stating that “Palestine has grown as rapidly as it has because the settlers have utilised every resource of the land”, and that “it has become in [a] mere few decades the most progressive post in the Middle East”. Also, the fact that Israel has launched a “new kind of democracy based on dedication to the land and labour” is strongly underscored there. Democracy – in opposition to the

1

Approximately 65,000 Bedouins (Falah, 1989) within the Palestine total population of 1,940,000 (Kimmerling, 2005), comprising Arabs (1,300,000) and Jews (640,000) before the 1948 war.

46

www.palimpsest.socjologia.uj.edu.pl

nr 6, czerwiec 2014


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

“barbaric” Arab countries – seems to be the new quality in Palestine, unknown so far. Again, Arabs are portrayed as lazy, unskilled and backward,in both the political and the technological sense. In four of the films2 it is explicitly stated that the Arabs are Israel’s enemies. Israel is portrayed with the use of words “little republic”, “the young democracy”, “brave, little republic”, etc. Since the country was born only a while ago, it does not have proper artillery and weapons, and thus has to get “tanks and weapons from improvised assembly lines” (Israel Reborn, 1948). As the film goes on, we learn that the Israelis are fighting for survival, heroically defending Jerusalem, having their synagogues burnt down, rescuing the sacred old scrolls (and we see Jewish children carrying the old piles of paper). In another film, Israel in Action (also 1948), Israel is credited for having one of “the most democratic armies” (whatever this means), their soldiers are well-trained, strong and “righteous”, “knowing what they are fighting for”. The cities are “well-defended” although an “Israeli officer was killed on the Holy Land”. Another movie, Never Again to be Denied (1968), tells us how hard it is to live in Israel because of “the continuous struggle of Israelis to defend their right to a national homeland in Israel while facing constant Arab hostility”. The propaganda narration continues, and we find out that “Israel fights to live”, “Israel must live” and that it is “so sweet to breathe the air of peace”. It may be said that the viewers are asked to believe that the Israelis are peace-oriented, and that it was the furious Arabs who started the hostilities. This is a very farfetched conclusion if we take into account the ethnic cleansing that took place in the first two decades of the existence of Israel(Kimmerling 2003:39). Also, the statement that “inside the old Arab populations, Jewish enterprises, administrations and stores have been established and Jews and Arabs live side

2

Adventure in Israel, Israel Reborn, Israel in Action, Never Again to be Denied.

47

by side, in peace” (Challenge of the Negev) is not really accurate in this sense, as bitter intercommunal wars have been well-documented (e.g. Kimmerling 2003:38). In 1937, the Palestinian leader Jamal al-Huseini observed that “every Jew’s entrance into Palestine means an Arab leaving Palestine” (quoted in Kimmerling 2003:44). The armies of the “five huge Arab nations” are portrayed as “hostile invaders” (both words appear in each of the four abovementioned films), “cunning invaders” (Israel Reborn), “suicide commandos”, “hateful Arabs”, and even composed of “ex-Nazi officers and SS guards” (Israel in Action). Later in the same film it is mentioned that they break international agreements and, although they are fully-armed, they are “unsuccessful in taking over well-defended Israeli cities” and so they have to “attack remote Israeli settlements”. In the film, when Israel signs treaties with the democratic superpower, the USA, the Arab countries sign a treaty “of a totally different kind” in Egypt. Arab soldiers are thus seen to have distorted values: attacking undefended settlements, killing “thousands of civilians”, destroying the “ancient city of Jerusalem”, burning down synagogues with old sacred scrolls inside (Israel in Action), attacking an ambulance and giving children a handgrenade to play with (Israel Reborn). As we learn in the filmNever to be Denied Again, the Arabs train their children in hate and teach them to kill, and moreover “the hatred is real and the training is real – with live ammunition”. Arabs are depicted attacking the holy places, such as the Tomb of Patriarchs, wounding 47 religious civilians. As these films would have it, war seems to be the Arabs’ natural state; it is only thanks to the Israelis that, finally, at least some cities canlive inpeace. It is also thanks to the Israelis that the land is fertile again, the civilisation has been revived and urbanisation is increasing there. There used to be a great civilisation there, but because of the Arabs’ rule it has declined – fortunately enough, the Israelis needed only a few mere decades to bring its glory back. Obviously, the land belongs to the scattered and now homeless Jews of the world, not Arabs who cannot even take

www.palimpsest.socjologia.uj.edu.pl

nr 6, czerwiec 2014


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

proper care of it. This is sufficient proof that the colonisation is right but this is not all: Arabs need it and benefit from it. They need peace, democracy and technology, which they can achieve only thanks to the Israelis. What is more, the “Bedouin tribes dispersed in the desert are also benefiting from the industrialisation of the Negev. They started using the Jewish water pipes, schools were established for them as well as the medical service to combat the diseases that kill them” (Challenge of the Negev). Colonisation represents the liberation and the future for the Arab people.

Concluding remarks Orientalist discourse is a powerful tool for creating and presenting “the Other” as needing and benefiting from colonisation. In the case of Israel, presenting “the Arabs” as inferior, backward and hateful was (and still is) important to justify the colonisation and later the occupation of Palestine, as well as to create Israeli national identity and the prototypical image of an Israeli citizen. Although the “pioneer times” of Israel have long since ended, the misrepresentation of the Palestinians and the Palestinian citizens of Israel is still present in public discourse at both political and massmedia levels. It is not possible to create a functioning, friendly, open and welcoming society if the foundations of national identity are partly based on fierce othering, especially if the Other constitutes a significant number of the society. But it is not only that – the tools that were once in use against a particular group are now more developed and their users are more skilled. This results in the already-existing stereotypes being more and more grounded and new ones being constructed. As most recent events have shown, Israel did not stop creating still newer enemies. Right before the elections, a long-forgotten eternal enemy, Iran, was summoned up, which was especially underlined in the speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu given on 18th April 2012, Remem48

brance Day. The prime minister drew a direct connection between the Holocaust and the threat from of Iran. This time, however, the Israelis rebelled, which resulted in the campaign “Israel loves Iran”. Posters, stickers, commercials and above all the Facebook fanpage broke out into the Israeli public (cyber)space. There is a glimmer of hope for breaking the vicious circle of othering. The popularity of the pro-Iranian campaign led to another one, namely “Israel loves Palestine”. As ironic as the name might sound, the changes in consciousness which stand behind it are significant, and may indeed lead to a less biased society.

Bibliography Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1991. “Writing against Culture”. In Fox, Richard (ed.), Recapturing Anthropology: Working in the Present.School of American Research Press, 137-62. Baumann, Gerd. 2006. Grammars of Identity/Alternity: AStructural approach. Berghahn Books, pp. 18-52. Access: http://books.google.co.il/books?id=DqEGulGWVdgC&lpg=PR9&ots=Uqz8G _K3eD&dq=Grammars%20of%20Identity%20Baumann&lr&hl=pl&pg= PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false [10.03.2012]. Eisenstadt, Shmuel. 1967. Israeli Society. Basic Books. Falah, Ghazi. 1989. Israeli State Policy towards Bedouin Sedentarization in the Negev.Journal of Palestine Studies, 19 (2), s. 71-90. Historical Jewish Press. The Palestine Post [online]. Access: http://www.jpress.org.il/publications/PPost-en.asp [25.08.2012]. Kimmerling, Baruch. 2005. The Invention and Decline of Israeliness. University of California Press.

www.palimpsest.socjologia.uj.edu.pl

nr 6, czerwiec 2014


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films

Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations, The Palestinian National Charter [online]. Access: http://www.un.int/palestine/PLO/PNAcharter.html [07.01.2012]. Said, Edward W. 1978.Orientalism.Vintage. Yadgar, Yaacov. 2003. Between“the Arab” and “the Religious Rightist”: “Significant Others” in the construction of Jewish-Israeli National Identity. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, volume 9, pp. 52-74.

BA diploma paper “The bilateral relationship between Erasmus English and Erasmus Identity”.Avidly interested in Israeli affairs and the question of individual identity in multicultural communities.

Films (The Spielberg Jewish Film Archive): The Challenge of the Negevhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tju3xwNb9rE (1950). This is our Valleyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtVEzASMPz8 (1947). Israel Rebornhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jQcGXYK8Hw (1948). Adventure in Israelhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPksAdEls84 (1953). Israel Journeyhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAa-eRRMR2c (1950s). Israel in Actionhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lcgVJKIe_c (1948). Never to Be Denied Againhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfmOOzPyMZY (1968). The Land of Promisehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDoD6W2z01s (1935). Sylwia Wodzinska Student of Intercultural Communication at Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, currently working on an MA dissertation entitled “Ethnic Group, Nation, Citizenship in a Multicultural State. Israel’s Example.”A graduate of English Philology from the University of Zielona Góra with the 49

www.palimpsest.socjologia.uj.edu.pl

nr 6, czerwiec 2014


Sylwia Wodzińska, Liberating Colonisation: Othering “the Arab” in Israeli Pioneer Films