TEHRAN-Hollywood’s relationship with Zionism has long been a delicate balancing act. While rarely explicit, the industry’s storytelling often mirrors broader American political alignments, emphasizing themes of Jewish resilience, historical trauma, and Israel’s right to exist. However, this approach frequently sidesteps critical engagement with Zionism’s modern political implications or Palestinian narratives. The 2023 biopic “Golda” epitomizes this trend, offering a case study of Hollywood’s selective framing of Zionism and its consequences.  

The 2023 film "Golda", directed by Guy Nattiv, centers on Golda Meir's leadership during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. starring Helen Mirren as Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir, the film delves into the personal and political challenges she faced during this tumultuous period. While some critics have praised Mirren's performance and the film's focus on a pivotal moment in Israeli history, others have raised concerns about its portrayal of Meir and the broader implications for Zionist narratives in cinema.

Historical context: the Yom Kippur War and its implications
  
The Yom Kippur War, also known as the October War, was a conflict fought between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria in October 1973. The war began with a surprise attack on Israel during the Jewish holy day of Yom Kippur, catching the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) off guard. Despite initial setbacks, Israel ultimately repelled the Arab forces and regained lost territory, solidifying its position as a regional military power.  

The war had profound implications for the Middle East, including the eventual peace treaty between Israel and Egypt in 1979. However, it also deepened the plight of Palestinians, many of whom were displaced or marginalized as a result of the conflict. The war is often framed in Western media as a story of Israeli resilience and survival, while the Palestinian perspective is largely ignored. This framing is evident in “Golda,” which focuses exclusively on Meir’s leadership and the Israeli experience of the war.  

The ‘benevolent leader’ trope  

The film portrays Meir as a stoic, chain-smoking matriarch burdened by the weight of wartime decisions. Her humanity is emphasized: scenes of her receiving chemotherapy, arguing with generals, and confronting U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger paint her as a relatable, if flawed, figure. However, this focus on personal sacrifice overshadows her government’s policies, including the ongoing occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967. Critics argue that lionizing Meir without addressing her role in entrenching Israeli control over the West Bank and Gaza sanitizes Zionist history.  

Israel’s ‘existential’ struggle 

“Golda” frames the Yom Kippur War as an existential battle for Israel’s survival, a narrative central to Zionist discourse. The film’s sound design immerses viewers in the trauma of surprise attacks by Arab states. While historically accurate, this framing reinforces the idea of Israel as a perpetual underdog, a trope often used to justify military aggression and settlement expansion. Missing is any mention of Palestinian displacement or the broader regional context of post-1967 tensions.
This movie portrays Meir as a reluctant warrior who is forced to defend her country against an existential threat. While it is true that Israel faced significant challenges during the Yom Kippur War, the film glosses over the broader context of the conflict, including Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories and its role in escalating tensions in the region.  

The erasure of Palestinian voices 
 
Palestinians are entirely absent from “Golda.” The film’s antagonists are faceless Arab armies, reducing the conflict to a binary of Israeli survival versus Arab aggression. This erasure perpetuates a Zionist narrative that dismisses Palestinian claims to sovereignty and normalizes Israel’s military dominance. By contrast, documentaries like “The Present” (2020) or “5 Broken Cameras” (2011) which center Palestinian experiences remain marginalized in mainstream Western media.  

By ignoring the Palestinian narrative, “Golda” perpetuates a long-standing trend in Hollywood of marginalizing Palestinian voices. This trend reflects broader biases in Western media, which often portray Palestinians as terrorists or passive victims, while Israelis are depicted as heroic and morally justified. In “Golda,” this bias is evident in the film’s portrayal of the Arab coalition as a monolithic threat, with no attempt to humanize or contextualize their actions.  

The U.S.-Israel special relationship 
 
The film highlights Meir’s fraught negotiations with Kissinger for American military aid, underscoring the U.S.-Israel alliance. This subplot reflects Hollywood’s tendency to align with U.S. foreign policy, which has unconditionally supported Israel since the Cold War. By framing U.S. aid as a moral imperative, “Golda” avoids critiquing the geopolitical consequences of this partnership, such as enabling Israel’s occupation.  

While the film succeeds in creating a compelling character study, it does so at the expense of historical nuance. The narrative is heavily skewed in favor of Israel, portraying the country as a victim of unprovoked aggression. The Arab coalition is depicted as a faceless enemy, with no exploration of their motivations or grievances. This lack of context reduces the conflict to a simplistic binary of good versus evil, ignoring the complex historical and political factors that contributed to the war.  

Moreover, the film's focus on Meir's personal struggles and the strategic dilemmas during the war may overshadow the broader geopolitical context and the experiences of those affected by the conflict. This selective storytelling can contribute to a skewed understanding of history, reinforcing certain narratives while marginalizing others.

The lack of Palestinian representation in “Golda” is particularly significant given the current political climate. As the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to dominate global headlines, the need for nuanced, inclusive storytelling has never been more urgent. Films have the power to shape public perception, and the absence of Palestinian voices in “Golda” risks reinforcing stereotypes and deepening divisions.

Some critics have argued that “Golda” could have taken a more balanced approach by incorporating Palestinian characters or perspectives, even if Meir remained the central figure. “A film about Golda Meir doesn’t have to be a film that erases Palestinians,” said journalist and filmmaker Rula Jebreal. “It’s possible to tell a story about Israeli leadership while also acknowledging the humanity and suffering of the Palestinian people.”

In an era where discussions on media representation are more important than ever, “Golda” serves as a reminder of Hollywood’s role in shaping and often distorting historical memory. The film’s failure to acknowledge Palestine is not just an oversight but part of a broader trend of historical revisionism that continues to deny Palestinian agency. If cinema is to be a tool for truth, it must include all perspectives not just those that serve political interests.

SD/SAB