The Palestinian cause and confronting the Zionist project have been used for decades by various Arab regimes to strengthen their grip on their people. Drama has played a significant role in portraying some regimes as leaders of the Ummah and defenders of Islamic and Arab sanctities. The promotion of these regimes has evolved in multiple phases; sometimes, they are presented as liberating leaders no less than great figures like Salah ad-Din and Baibars. At other times, they use the drama they produce to promote coexistence and peace, paving the way for normalization with the occupying entity. In any case, drama has always been present, ready to shape the people and encourage them to support the regime.
“It is better to be feared than loved,” said Machiavelli to Italian princes—a piece of advice that prevailed until the end of World War II, after which major powers adopted a new methodology. This approach sought to use soft power, including culture, sports, and the arts, combining force with psychological control over the opponent. The term became a scientific concept in 1990, coined by political scientist Joseph Nye under the title “soft power,” which involves attracting others and aligning them with you without using weapons or bribing them with money.
From 1948 until “Camp David,” regimes worked to prevent Arab drama infiltration and maintain enmity towards Zionists.
Returning to the fundamental principles of soft power, drama in its various forms is part of the cultural tools of soft power for any country or entity. To be effective both internally and externally, this cultural tool must address the audience in a manner that suits them and in a language they understand. Additionally, it must carry content that impacts the audience, whether internal or external, and should be presented in a format that makes it easily understandable to viewers, even those unfamiliar with the subject, without needing to resort to research or complexity.
Upon close examination of Arab drama production and its role in confronting the Zionist project and supporting the Palestinian cause, it is clear that the frontline states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon) have been pioneers in using drama as a form of soft power. However, they have used it to direct the Arab public. The regimes worked to attract and mobilize their nations to adopt their views on the Zionist project. They also led the public to align with the state's orientations, whether these were aimed at opposing the project or normalizing with it, depending on the time period and the state of military confrontation with it.
The Evolution of Dramatic Engagement with the Zionist Project
Government control over broadcasting and artistic production in Arab countries, along with these countries' official adherence to the standards of confrontation with the Zionist project, boycotting the occupying state, and refusing normalization with it, had a significant impact on the region. From 1948 until the signing of “Camp David,” they worked to prevent the infiltration of Arab drama and maintain an atmosphere of hostility towards the Zionists. For decades, the Arab public remained largely untouched by artistic works that integrated Zionists into the region and made dealing with them economically and politically a necessity for peaceful coexistence. Frontline states maintained their focus on sending specific messages that reaffirmed the principles of the conflict and its connection to Arab identity.
The main narrative carried by most Arab dramas remained largely unaffected or diminished, despite the successive defeats of Arab armies. Instead, these works portrayed defeat within the context of the ongoing conflict with the Zionist project. Throughout this journey, they also highlighted partial victories achieved by some of these armies, broadcasting hope and encouraging continued confrontation, while the focus on intelligence victories was particularly prominent.
After the “Arab Spring,” there was an intensified wave of attacks against the resistance in Egyptian drama, which began sending provocative messages against it.
The wave of confrontation with the Zionist project began to break after Egypt's first symbolic victory over the occupying army in 1973. With the late President Anwar Sadat's turn towards “Camp David” in 1978, the Egyptian regime sought to use art and drama to convince the Egyptian and Arab public of the treaty. The most alarming aspect of this period was the justification of national self-protection, which was conceived by the Egyptian dramatic imagination. This shift would later evolve, especially after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, into laying the groundwork for a shift in Arab drama away from conflict with the Zionist project. However, Arab drama continued to sway between confrontation with the Zionist project, showcasing its crimes against Palestinians, and promoting normalization with this project, sometimes subtly and other times audaciously.
By the late 1990s and early 2000s, we see a variety of approaches in Egyptian cinema. Some works presented the Palestinian cause, even if marginally, such as in the films “Sa'eedi in the American University” and “Friends or Business.” Others warned of Zionist infiltration and normalization, such as in the films “Fattah Eneek” and “Ahlam Omrena.” Not to mention the Syrian drama that offered “Al-Taghreba al-Falastenya,” the most profound work dealing with the cause in its various human, historical, and resistance dimensions.
Meanwhile, other works subtly promoted the necessity of normalization while maintaining hostility. Examples include the films “The Cousins” and “The Embassy in the Building,” and the series “Ferqat Naji Atallah.” Some series during this period even attempted to normalize the Jewish character, as depicted in the series “Bab Al-Hara,” portraying Jews as peaceful individuals spreading peace within society.
The “Arab Spring” and Normalization Drama
The events of the “Arab Spring” had a profound impact on the Arab world, with regimes becoming aware of the dangers of this wave's continuation or resurgence after its failure. This led to increased rapprochement between the regimes opposing the “Arab Spring” and the Zionist entity. This position also affected resistance movements, with Egyptian drama particularly intensifying its attacks on them by sending inflammatory messages.
The heroics of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” battle forced drama makers to send positive messages towards Palestinian resistance.
Gulf states joined the trend of drama aligning with the Zionist project, producing series that promoted normalization with it. These works attempted to create a new narrative of the good Jew who sought to live peacefully in his homeland but was forced to leave due to persecution. The series “Haret El Yahood” was the most blatant example of this phase. After the “Arab Spring,” drama's contribution to the Zionist project served two dangerous messages in the conflict. The first was the demonization of the Palestinian resistance, specifically, and the second was linking anyone who aids that resistance to terrorism, “ISIS” extremism, and drug trafficking.
The “Al-Aqsa Flood” and a Cautious Return
The course of the confrontation and the extension of the war following the heroics presented by the resistance in the battle that began on October 7, 2023, “Al-Aqsa Flood,” forced drama makers to cautiously send some positive messages in Ramadan series in 2024. Some series called for boycotting companies and countries supporting the Zionist entity. They were also compelled to produce the series “Maliha,” which tells the story of a girl who was displaced from Gaza in 2000 and stayed in Libya with her grandfather until Gaddafi's fall, deciding to return. The series narrated the story of the occupation of Palestine, alongside a parallel story of Egypt's assistance to Palestine. Although not entirely positive, it marked a new step after drama had long receded from confronting the Zionist project, even if only cautiously.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Read the Article in Arabic
