To tell a story about a part of the history of the Arab-Zionist conflict, it must be neutral to the maximum extent possible, and this is what the film was trying to do. It tried to collect the views of the two parties and present them to each other, in order to prevent the filmmakers from being accused of siding with one party, but the question is, did he succeed in that?
In my opinion, it did not work, because in the real world you cannot be neutral in a way or another, especially if you are part of this conflict and discuss a subject with such sensitivity.
You must be very accurate in telling historical facts, for example: *were the Palestinians really willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel in return for granting them semi-autonomous rule in the West Bank??
*Was the Oslo agreement expressing the public opinion of the Palestinians or the Zionists??
*Was the scene of Mona Juul's memories during the Intifada really expressing the two sides??
All of these topics and more it gives an idea to ordinary Western viewers that the Oslo agreement was in this very ordinary form like any peace agreement.
In my opinion, it did not work, because in the real world you cannot be neutral in a way or another, especially if you are part of this conflict and discuss a subject with such sensitivity.
You must be very accurate in telling historical facts, for example: *were the Palestinians really willing to recognize the legitimacy of Israel in return for granting them semi-autonomous rule in the West Bank??
*Was the Oslo agreement expressing the public opinion of the Palestinians or the Zionists??
*Was the scene of Mona Juul's memories during the Intifada really expressing the two sides??
All of these topics and more it gives an idea to ordinary Western viewers that the Oslo agreement was in this very ordinary form like any peace agreement.