'The Promise' - An Analysis

Kosminsky wrote and directed The Promise with the intention of addressing an ongoing conflict through a four part drama serial which primarily focused on the ‘drama’ of the various relationships that featured. The primary relationship involves Erin, an English teen, who becomes acquainted with her deceased grandfather through a diary he kept whilst in Palestine as a member of the British forces, before the State of Israel was declared.

Though Erin’s encounters are entertaining, reactions and reviews of ‘The Promise’ have centered around the representation of the Arab/ Israeli conflict.

Mark Robins, First Year, History

As a great enjoyer of TV and everything Israel related, the prospect of watching a drama, related to the Israel Palestine conflict was one that I certainly wasn’t to pass up on. I don’t ever recall a drama on British TV exploring this aspect of the Middle East, so I thought it would be a wonderful platform to show the British public the many complexities of the situation, whilst encouraging a platform for open debate and dialogue. I expected neutrality on the part of Kosminsky, who had actually stayed in Israel for a year during filming and had a cast consisting of many Israeli actors, but were my expectations met?

Not exactly. What I got was a series in which all Israeli’s were presented as wealthy, anti-Zionist or extreme right; at times cold, distant and even inhuman in the case of the settlers. In episode one, the impression of Israel pre-sented as Erin toured passed the mansions and palaces of Caesarea was for anyone who’s visited Israel a startling revelation. Trust me, if that was the true Israel, I would have made Aliyah so fast! In episode two, we see the gated and pillared house of grandpa with his garden of palm trees and accessory swimming pool. No tennis courts? Of course, grandpa was no soft gentle Jewish zaydah offering food every 2 minutes. We were given nothing short of a bond villain to give the Israeli perspective or ‘the voice of Israel’. Amongst his rants, which involved the Alan Sugar ‘you’re fired’ finger on numerous occasions, we were lucky enough to hear him deliver such Gandhi-like lines as “Who do you think trained us to kill” and my personal favourite, “they stood in our way. And we wiped them out.” Why not just cast Gadaffi? Episode 3. The setting is Hebron. We have a crowd of reasoned, modern, secular people and a crazy Jew with a microphone screaming something along the lines of “let them fire at the Arabs.” After being stoned by Jewish kids, Erin takes us on a tour of a communal Jewish house in Hebron, and not a single smiling, happy Jewish face. Host Salit in particular, was a bundle of laughs. However, worse was yet to come. The last episode made for particu-larly uncomfortable viewing showing the IDF use of human shields, Jews as child killers, a near Rachel Corrie type bull-dozer incident. At times it was extremely painful to watch. And during all this Hamas, that wonderful beacon of peace, was represented by an innocent looking teen with a gun.

As for balance, we have the occasional Nazi-British analogy, the one suicide bombing. Was I the only one who thought it inappropriate that a pizza delivery guy was the first on the scene?

But there was no mention of the Arab invasions of Israel upon her independence, no mention of the Hebron massacre, or the Jewish exodus from Arab lands. And in the modern context, what about Hamas use of human shields, incessant rocket fire and stated aims? What about Israel’s existential threat?

For me this just shows how easily it is for a group of people to be misrepresented. Whether Jewish, Muslim Catholic or other. The way to combat such misrepresentation is through listening to the narratives of others, to be open and sensitive to others points of views and correcting inaccuracies through education and discussion wherever possible.

The Promise had to potential to create an atmosphere in which open discussion about the conflict could have been achieved. Instead it’s made supporters of both sides retreat into their own pre-existing political ‘camps’ of opinion, as I have done, rather than encouraging debate and dialogue, which is a real shame and a wasted opportunity. Despite its many flaws, or maybe as a result of them, The Promise still poses a chance for people to have honest, open discussion about representation, historical accuracies and the conflict itself. We need to create these opportunities, or be resigned to a future where Israel is further scrutinized and condemned and the Jewish community forever on the defensive.

Ben Curtis, Second Year, International Relations

Like many of my contemporaries, I was excited about the new Channel 4 drama The Promise, which gave me something to look forward to on a Sunday night. However, as the series progressed my feelings turned to anger as the show’s subtle propaganda began to unfold.

Reflecting on the series as a whole, I would argue that there was clear bias. Throughout the series, Jews are portrayed as the “bad guys” whereas Arabs are made to look like the “good guys”. This is shown by the extensive focus on the Irgun, a Jewish underground military group, during the depiction of British Mandate Palestine. The overemphasis on this group was surprising because their views were in no way representative of the Jewish population as a whole. It is only the Jewish acts of terror that are highlighted with no mention of the numerous Arab revolts that cost hundreds of British and Jewish lives.

Additionally, the Jewish lover of the main British soldier betrays him terribly, helping to portray the Jews of Mandate Palestine as brutal and treacherous. This is a great contrast to the depiction of a warm and kind Arab family befriended by the British solider. In the modern day element of the drama the main character Erin, like her grandfather, becomes increasingly sensitive to the Palestinian cause and grows to resent Israel. As both sub plots ultimately draw similar conclusions of Israeli wrongdoing and Arab innocence it is not hard to decipher the message promoted through the drama.

Some of the negative portrayals of contemporary Israeli society in The Promise are accurate, whereas others are completely unfounded. Having visited the West Bank, I can attest to the fact that the occu-pation is ugly and makes life hard for Palestinians. It is true that there are some areas like Hebron where extremist settlers taunt and intimidate their Palestinian neighbours and this is deplorable.

The portrayal of the Israeli army using human shields, however, could not be further from the truth and is frankly insulting. Such actions are completely against the moral standards of an army that is bound by a “purity of arms” as well as international humanitarian norms. If such a crime was committed by a soldier he would be duly arrested and prosecuted by the Israeli justice system.

The premise of the series is revealed in the last episode when the key British soldier questions the legitimacy of the new Jewish state due to the ‘violence’ and ‘cruelty to its neighbours’ that precedes its establish-ment. These closing remarks unjustly insinuate that perhaps the State of Israel should not exist at all. It is implied that it was solely the Jews who were responsible for the violence before the British withdrawal from Palestine. This completely overlooks the fact that a civil war had in fact broken out between the Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine due to Arab anger at the announcement of the United Nations partition plan in November 1947. The plan proposed the creation of a Jewish and Arab state in Palestine with Jerusalem remaining under international sovereignty. Had the Arabs accepted the proposal, a conflict lasting over sixty years seeing thousands of lives lost on both sides, could have been avoided.

I would argue that The Promise is a reflection of the director Peter Kosminsky’s own opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Whilst I appreciate that everyone is entitled to their opinion, this must be distinguished from reality. The Promise, although very well acted, emotive and compelling, is a one-sided perspective on the origins of this complex conflict. It is, essentially, a theatrical projection of the Palestinian narrative and must be recognised as such.

By Mark Robins and Ben Curtis