The relationship between Tehran Hollywood and Zionism has long been a delicate balance act. Although rarely clear, industry storytelling often reflects broader American political integrity, highlighting themes of Jewish resilience, historical trauma and Israel’s right to exist. Masu. However, this approach frequently eschews critical involvement with the contemporary political meaning of Zionism and Palestinian narratives. The 2023 biography, Gorda, symbolizes this trend, providing a case study of selective framing of Hollywood Zionism and its results.
Directed by Guy Nattiv, the 2023 film “Golda” centers around Golda Meir’s leadership during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Starring Helen Mirren as Israeli Prime Minister Gorda Meir, the film explores the personal and political challenges faced in this intense era. While some critics praise Mirren’s performance and the film’s focus at a pivotal moment in Israeli history, others are concerned about the portrayal of Meir and the wider influence on the film’s Zionist narrative has been raised.
Historical background: The Yom Kipper War and its meaning
The Yom Kipur War, also known as the October War, was a conflict fought in October 1973 between Israel and the alliance of Arab countries led by Egypt and Syria. Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is caught off guard. Despite the initial set-off, Israel ultimately repelled the Arab troops, regained its lost territory and solidified its position as a military force in the region.
The war had profound influence on the Middle East, including the 1979 final peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. But it deepened the Palestinian light form. While the Palestinian perspective is largely ignored, war is often surrounded as a tale of Israel’s resilience and survival. This framing is evident in “Golda,” which focuses solely on Meir’s leadership and Israeli experience of war.
The trope of the “merciful leader”
The film portrays Maia as a stoic, chain-smoking patriarch who strains the weight of wartime decisions. Her humanity is emphasized. The scene where she undergoes chemotherapy, discusses with the general and stands up against U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, portrays her as a relevant person, if flawed. However, this focus on personal sacrifice veils her government’s policies, including the continued occupation of Palestinian territory since 1967. Critics have argued that she will lionize Meia without dealing with her role in the West Bank and Gaza rule.
Israel’s “existent” struggle
“Gorda” frames the Yom Kipper War as an existential battle for the survival of Israel, the central story of Zionist discourse. The sound design of the film immerses viewers in the trauma of surprising attacks by Arab countries. Although historically accurate, this framing reinforces Israel’s view as a permanent underdog. Missing refers to the Palestinian migration of tensions since 1967 or the broader regional context.
The film portrays Maia as a passive warrior forced to protect her country from existential threats. It is true that Israel faced important challenges during the Yom Kipper war, but the film lost the broader context of conflict, including its role in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and growing regional tensions. Masu.
Erase of the Palestinian Voice
The Palestinians are totally lacking in “Gorda.” The film’s antagonists are faceless Arab forces, reducing the conflict with the binary of Israel’s survival against Arab attacks. This elimination dismisses the Palestinian claims against sovereignty and perpetuates the Zionist narrative normalizing Israel’s military rule. In contrast, documentaries such as “The Present” (2020) and “Five Broken Cameras” (2011), where Palestinian experiences were marginalized in Western media, where mainstream Palestinian experiences were.
By ignoring Palestinian stories, “Gorda” perpetuates the longstanding trend in Hollywood to alienate Palestinian voices. This trend reflects the broader bias in Western media, which often portrays Palestinians as terrorists or passive victims, but depicts Israelis as heroic and morally justified. It’s here. In “Gorda,” this bias is evident in the film’s portrayal of the Arab Union as a monolithic threat.
Special relations between the United States and Israel
The film highlights Meia’s difficult negotiations with Kissinger for American military aid and highlights the US Israeli Alliance. This subplot reflects Hollywood’s trends consistent with US foreign policy that has unconditionally supported Israel since the Cold War. “Gorda” avoids criticizing the geopolitical consequences of this partnership, such as enabling Israeli occupation by framing US aid as a moral order.
The film succeeds in creating compelling character studies, but does so at the expense of historical nuances. The story portrays the country as a victim of an unprovoked attack, distorted in Israel’s favor. The Arab Union is portrayed as faceless enemies without exploring their motivations or complaints. This lack of context reduces conflict to simple binaries of good and evil, ignoring the complex historical and political factors that contributed to the war.
Additionally, the film focuses on Meir’s personal struggles and strategic dilemmas during the war, allowing it to overshadow the wider geopolitical context and experiences of those affected by the conflict. This selective storytelling contributes to a distorted understanding of history and reinforces certain stories while alienating other stories.
The lack of Palestinian representation in “Gorda” is particularly important given the current political situation. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to dominate global headlines, the need for subtle and comprehensive storytelling is more urgent than ever. Films have the power to shape public perception, and the lack of Palestinian voice in “Gorda” risks strengthening and divising stereotypes.
Some critics argue that even if Meia was the central character, “Gorda” could have taken a more balanced approach by incorporating Palestinian characters and perspectives. “A film about Gorda Meir doesn’t have to be a film that erases the Palestinians,” said journalist and film director Lula Jebir. “It is possible to talk about Israeli leaders while acknowledging the humanity and suffering of the Palestinian people.”
In an age where debate about media representation is more important than ever, “Gorda” serves as a reminder of the role of Hollywood, which shaped historical memories and often distorted. The film’s failure to acknowledge Palestine is not merely surveillance, but part of a broader trend in historical revisionism that continues to deny Palestinian institutions. If films are a tool of truth, then you need to include all perspectives, not just those that serve political interests.
SD/SAB