Unmasking Hollywood’s Selective Memory: How ‘Golda’ Mutes Essential Critiques

Hollywood’s intricate relationship with Zionism has been a subject of scrutiny for decades. While the film industry often hints at Jewish resilience and historical trauma, it frequently avoids a deeper examination of the modern implications of Zionism and the Palestinian narrative. The 2023 biopic “Golda” stands as a notable example of this trend, showcasing how Hollywood selectively frames Zionism and its repercussions.

The film “Golda,” directed by Guy Nattiv and featuring Helen Mirren as Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, focuses on her leadership during the critical 1973 Yom Kippur War. While some reviewers commend Mirren’s performance and the film’s portrayal of a significant chapter in Israeli history, others express concern over its representation of Meir and the wider implications for Zionist narratives within cinema.

Historical Context: The Yom Kippur War and Its Implications

The Yom Kippur War, also referred to as the October War, took place in October 1973 between Israel and a coalition of Arab nations, primarily Egypt and Syria. The conflict commenced with a surprise assault on Israel during the sacred day of Yom Kippur, catching the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) off guard. Despite initial challenges, Israel managed to repel the Arab forces, reclaiming lost territory and solidifying its status as a regional military power.

This war had significant repercussions for the Middle East, including the eventual peace agreement between Israel and Egypt in 1979. However, it also exacerbated the plight of Palestinians, many of whom were displaced or marginalized due to the conflict. Western media often frames the war as a story of Israeli resilience, frequently neglecting the Palestinian perspective. This narrative is evident in “Golda,” which centers solely on Meir’s leadership and the Israeli experience during the war.

The ‘Benevolent Leader’ Trope

In the film, Meir is depicted as a stoic, chain-smoking leader burdened by the weight of her decisions during wartime. Her humanity is highlighted through scenes of her undergoing chemotherapy, engaging with military generals, and negotiating with U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. However, this emphasis on personal sacrifice overshadows her government’s policies, including the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967. Critics argue that glorifying Meir without addressing her role in perpetuating Israeli control sanitizes a complex historical narrative.

Israel’s ‘Existential’ Struggle

“Golda” presents the Yom Kippur War as an existential struggle for Israel’s survival, a prevailing theme in Zionist discourse. The film’s sound design immerses viewers in the trauma of surprise assaults by Arab nations, reinforcing the perception of Israel as a perpetual underdog. This portrayal often serves to justify military actions and settlement expansions, while omitting mention of Palestinian displacement and the larger regional context of post-1967 tensions.

The Erasure of Palestinian Voices

Notably, Palestinians are entirely absent from “Golda.” The film portrays the opposition as faceless Arab armies, simplifying the conflict to a narrative of Israeli survival versus Arab aggression. This omission perpetuates a Zionist narrative that dismisses Palestinian claims to sovereignty and normalizes Israel’s military dominance. In contrast, documentaries like “The Present” (2020) and “5 Broken Cameras” (2011) that focus on Palestinian experiences remain marginalized within mainstream Western media.

By neglecting the Palestinian viewpoint, “Golda” contributes to a long-standing trend in Hollywood of sidelining Palestinian voices. This trend reflects broader biases in Western media that often depict Palestinians as either terrorists or passive victims, while portraying Israelis as heroic and morally justified. The film’s representation of the Arab coalition as a monolithic threat lacks any attempt to humanize or contextualize their actions.

The U.S.-Israel Special Relationship

The film also highlights Meir’s challenging negotiations with Kissinger regarding American military aid, underscoring the strong alliance between the U.S. and Israel. This subplot illustrates Hollywood’s tendency to align with U.S. foreign policy, which has historically supported Israel unconditionally since the Cold War. By framing U.S. aid as a moral obligation, “Golda” avoids exploring the geopolitical consequences of this partnership, including its role in enabling the occupation.

Although the film effectively creates a compelling character study, it does so at the expense of historical accuracy and nuance. The narrative heavily favors Israel, portraying the nation as a victim of unprovoked aggression. The Arab coalition is represented as a faceless enemy, with no exploration of their motivations or grievances, reducing the conflict to a simplistic binary of good versus evil.

The Importance of Inclusive Storytelling

The lack of Palestinian representation in “Golda” carries significant implications, especially given the current political climate. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to dominate global discussions, the need for nuanced, inclusive storytelling is paramount. Films wield the power to shape public perception, and the absence of Palestinian voices in “Golda” risks reinforcing stereotypes and deepening societal divides.

Some critics have suggested that “Golda” could have presented a more balanced narrative by incorporating Palestinian characters or perspectives, even while Meir remained the central figure. As journalist and filmmaker Rula Jebreal articulated, “A film about Golda Meir doesn’t have to be a film that erases Palestinians.”

In an era where media representation discussions are critical, “Golda” serves as a stark reminder of Hollywood’s role in shaping and often distorting historical memory. The film’s failure to acknowledge the Palestinian narrative represents not merely an oversight but a reflection of a broader trend in historical revisionism that continues to deny Palestinian agency. For cinema to be a genuine tool for truth, it must encompass all perspectives, rather than just those that align with prevailing political interests.