Iron Wall: A Response Movie Review Example

While much has been hypothesized regarding the documentary Iron Wall, it is crucial to note that its construction was hypothesized as the primary strategy that could bring lasting peace between Palestine’s and Israelis. However, the construction of the Iron Wall was not of the best interests of the Palestine’s. Instead, its construction can be seen as a way of establishing settlements on the zone of conflict; hence, avoid any practical attempts to attain lasting peace. Overall, the documentary is filled with bias as it depicts persistent notions that Palestine’s were indeed side lined during the construction of the Iron Wall. These notions are certainly justified based on the fact the construction of this wall posed specific influences on Palestinian citizens. Overall, the documentary depicts bias in that it is centered on the notions that construction if the Iron Wall poses significant effects on the lives of Palestinians because it arrogates their human rights.
As a result, the persistent use of bias in the current documentary has an immense effect on what I learn from the film. Precisely, the documentary seeks to convince me that indeed Jews and Israelis are the main aggressors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that has evolved into a contentious issue across various settings all over the globe. In fact, the documentary attempts to make the audience forget the past transgressions such as the Hebron Massacre, which was precipitated by the Palestine’s. From this analysis, what I learn from the documentary is highly influenced by the level of bias embodied in the film. Notably, bias depicted by the film affect what I learn from it in that it creates the perception that Israelis are not fighting for the cause of peace in the conflict region around the West Bank.