Hollywood has long played a crucial role in shaping Western perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reinforcing a pro-Israel narrative that frames Israelis as noble victims and Palestinians as violent aggressors. These portrayals are not accidental but align with U.S (Shaheen, 2003). Geopolitical interests, especially as Israel has been a key ally of the US in the Middle East. By consistently dehumanizing Palestinians and glorifying Israeli military resilience, Hollywood has helped justify Israeli expansionist policies while erasing Palestinian historical grievances (Shaheen, 2003)

This reflective essay argues that Hollywood’s depiction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far from being just entertainment but a form of ideological propaganda designed to influence public opinion and support for Israel. This pattern is particularly evident in three major films, which will be the focus of this essay:: Exodus (1960), Cast a Giant Shadow (1966), and Black Sunday (1977). 

Each film reflects the political climate of a specific time. Exodus (1960) reinforced Israel’s legitimacy in U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War, Cast a Giant Shadow (1966) reinforced the idea of Israeli military heroism during 1948 (Nakba) while ignoring Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe) and displacement, and Black Sunday (1977) capitalized on Western fears of Palestinian militancy following the 1972 Munich Olympics attack. By analyzing character portrayals, narrative framing, and historical omissions, this reflective essay will explore how these films distort the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, shaping global perceptions in ways that justify Israeli policies while silencing Palestinian voices. Hollywood’s selective storytelling has not only influenced public opinion but also contributed to Western foreign policy decisions that continue to marginalize Palestinian rights and struggles.

I chose to analyze these three films specifically because they heavily favor Israel while completely disregarding the Palestinian perspective. Their biased dialogue and militant narratives mirror real-life events such as the Nakba and the 1972 Munich attack, legitimizing Israel’s actions while portraying Palestinians as aggressors (Shaheen, 2006). Moreover, their release had a profound influence on public perception, reinforcing pro-Israel sentiment. These films also exemplify a recurring pattern in Hollywood’s depiction of the conflict, which persisted through the 1980s and 1990s when around 30 films portrayed Palestinians as a relentless threat to Americans, further cementing negative stereotypes in Western media (Shaheen, 2006).

By selectively crafting its characters, omitting key historical events, and portraying Palestinian resistance as an existential threat, Exodus distorts the realities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while legitimizing Israeli expansionist policies.

The film’s protagonist, Ari Ben Canaan, played by Paul Newman, is the quintessential Zionist hero, charismatic, morally righteous, and determined to establish the Jewish state against all odds (Youvan, 2024). He is depicted as a peacemaker, while Arabs, particularly Palestinians, are shown as irrational aggressors unwilling to compromise. Beyond erasing Palestinian historical grievances, the film further dehumanizes them by associating them with one of history’s most infamous regimes. As Shaheen (2006) notes, “Here Palestinians are either invisible or they're linked with Nazis, perpetrators of horrific (acts)” (Shaheen, 2006). This false equivalence portrays Palestinian resistance as irrational hatred rather than a response to displacement and occupation. By framing Arab militants as Nazi successors, the film delegitimizes their struggle and justifies Israeli policies as a necessary defense against evil.

One of the most striking examples of narrative manipulation in Exodus occurs during a conversation between General Sutherland (Ralph Richardson) and Kitty Fremont (Eva Marie Saint) , a nurse. When Kitty states, “I do know the Jews were promised a homeland in Palestine,” the film presents this as an unquestioned truth, erasing the indigenous Palestinian population. Gen. Sutherland’s remark, “The Arabs are fanatics on the subject of Jewish immigration (In Palestine),”further distorts history, reducing Palestinian resistance to irrational hostility rather than a legitimate response to displacement. The film omits the Nakba, during which over 700,000 Palestinians were expelled in 1948 (Youvan, 2024), framing them solely as aggressors. By portraying Zionist aspirations as just and Palestinian resistance as unjustified, Exodus reinforces a one-sided narrative that legitimizes Israeli territorial claims while erasing Palestinian suffering, shaping Western perceptions in favor of Israel. 

The emotional manipulation in Exodus is further amplified in the character of Karen, a young Jewish refugee who is brutally murdered by an Arab assailant (Exodus,1960). Her death serves as an emotional turning point in the film, reinforcing the idea that Palestinians are bloodthirsty and devoid of humanity. This framing makes it easier for audiences to justify Israeli violence as self-defense while ignoring the suffering of Palestinian refugees. The film’s refusal to acknowledge Palestinian suffering or provide them with a voice in the narrative is a deliberate act of historical erasure (Youvan, 2024).

The Cold War context is critical in understanding why Exodus adopted this narrative. Released in 1960, the film coincided with U.S. efforts to position Israel as a key Western ally against Soviet influence in the Middle East. As Arab nationalist movements gained attraction, several of them aligned with the Soviet Union, making it strategically advantageous for Hollywood to portray Arabs, particularly Palestinians, as violent extremists (Youvan, 2024). This depiction helped solidify American public support for Israel while demonizing Arab resistance movements. The film’s widespread success ensured that these biases became deeply ingrained in Western perceptions of the conflict, making it difficult for Palestinian narratives to gain mainstream recognition.

Ultimately, Exodus is not just a false historical drama but a carefully constructed ideological work that serves as a tool of political propaganda. Through its glorification of Israeli settlers, its demonization of Palestinians, and its omission of Palestinian suffering, the film reinforces a one-sided narrative that continues to shape global perceptions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As Youvan (2024) argues, Hollywood’s portrayal of the conflict has not only distorted historical realities but has also played a direct role in legitimizing Western political interests in the region. By linking Palestinians to Nazis, portraying Arab resistance as senseless terrorism, and erasing Palestinian suffering, Exodus contributes to a broader pattern of Hollywood filmmaking that serves political rather than historical truth.

The film’s dialogue and structure serve as overt propaganda, designed to promote a pro-Israel narrative. In one scene, an American military specialist says, “Now here is a country surrounded by five Arab Nations ready to shove them into the Mediterranean” (Cast a Giant Shadow, 1966). This statement frames Israel as a fragile and innocent state facing existential destruction, while simultaneously erasing the historical reality of the Nakba (catastrophe) of 1948, when over 700,000 Palestinians were forcibly displaced from their homes (Shaheen, 2006). By omitting this key historical event, the film not only justifies Israel’s military actions but also reinforces the false notion that Palestinian resistance was unprovoked aggression rather than a response to forced displacement.

Palestinians in Cast a Giant Shadow are not portrayed as political actors fighting for their homeland but rather as faceless gunmen devoid of any legitimate grievances. The most disturbing example of this portrayal occurs in a brutal scene depicting a burnt-out bus with a dead Jewish woman tied to its side, her body marked with a Star of David carved into her back (Shaheen, 2006). This highly exaggerated and dehumanizing imagery serves a dual purpose: it reinforces the stereotype of Palestinians as barbaric extremists driven by pure hatred, while simultaneously invoking historical trauma associated with the Holocaust to align the Israeli struggle with Jewish victimhood. This deliberate weaponization of Jewish suffering to justify Israeli military actions is a common theme in Hollywood’s portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The release of Cast a Giant Shadow in 1966 was not coincidental, it was deeply tied to the political climate of the Middle East and shifting U.S.-Israeli relations. During this period, Israel and Hollywood worked together to reshape the historical narrative of Israel’s creation, portraying Israelis as innocent victims fighting for survival while erasing the Palestinian experience of displacement and resistance.

By collaborating with Hollywood, Israel was able to shape American public opinion, ensuring that U.S. support for Israel was framed as a moral obligation rather than a political strategy. Through films like Cast a Giant Shadow, American audiences were led to sympathize with Israel while disregarding Palestinian suffering, paving the way for continued unquestioned U.S. political and military backing of Israeli policies.

The plot centers on Dahlia Iyad (Marthe Keller), a Palestinian militant and member of Black September, who conspires with Michael Lander (Bruce Dern), a disillusioned Vietnam War veteran, to carry out a mass attack using a bomb-rigged blimp (Dajani, 2000). Their goal is to massacre 80,000 spectators, including the U.S. President. Major David Kabakov (Robert Shaw), an Israeli Mossad agent, leads the effort to thwart the attack, portraying Israel’s intelligence service as a heroic force against terrorism  (Dajani, 2000).

Dahlia Iyad is depicted as a cold, calculating terrorist, underscored by her chilling remark, “Striking is what hurts them most” (Black Sunday, 1977).This portrayal is not only part of Hollywood’s broader vilification of Palestinians but also an intentional effort to dehumanize Palestinian women. By making the film’s primary Palestinian antagonist a woman, Black Sunday strips her of femininity and compassion, reducing her to a one-dimensional extremist. This depiction reinforces harmful stereotypes that Palestinian women are just as radical and violent as their male counterparts. Such dehumanization has real-world consequences. By portraying Palestinian women as terrorists, films like Black Sunday justify their treatment as combatants rather than civilians. Through this framing, Hollywood not only perpetuates stereotypes but also contributes to the broader discourse that rationalizes violence against Palestinian women under the guise of counterterrorism.

The film’s political significance is tied to the 1972 Munich Olympics attack, where Black September killed 11 Israeli athletes (Dajani, 2000).. In our Understanding Media Context class, we analyzed how films like Black Sunday reinforce Western fears of Palestinian militancy, portraying Palestinians as mindless terrorists rather than individuals engaged in a political struggle. This narrative was further fueled by the 1973 oil embargo, which we studied in Gulf Politics (Rose, 2004).. In response to U.S. support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, OAPEC cut oil exports, triggering an economic crisis and deepening anti-Arab sentiment. Black Sunday capitalized on these tensions, solidifying negative stereotypes of Arabs and Palestinians in American culture.

The timing of Black Sunday’s release was no coincidence. The film worked closely with the U.S. administration, aligning with broader geopolitical narratives that framed Palestinians as a global menace. As Shaheen points out, “The movies that we see basically follow Washington’s policy”  (Shaheen, 2006). This highlights how Hollywood has long functioned as an extension of political messaging, reinforcing narratives that serve U.S. foreign policy interests. By repeatedly depicting Palestinians as terrorists, these films shape public perception, making audiences more receptive to policies that criminalize Palestinian resistance and justify military action against them. 

The release of Black Sunday was not an isolated event but part of a larger trend in Hollywood’s portrayal of Palestinians and Arabs. As Shaheen notes, “particularly during the 1980s and the 90s, where you had perhaps 30 films which showed Palestinians as a people who were intent on injuring all Americans” (Shaheen, 2006). Hollywood consistently reinforced the idea that Palestinians were not only violent but a direct threat to the West. Films such as True Lies and Death Before Dishonor followed the same formula, portraying Palestinians and Arabs as relentless enemies of America, stripping them of any complexity or humanity (Shaheen, 2006). This sustained portrayal over decades played a critical role in shaping the way Americans understood the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, reinforcing the idea that Palestinians were aggressors rather than a displaced and oppressed people.

The portrayal of Palestinians in Exodus (1960), Cast a Giant Shadow (1966), and Black Sunday (1977) reflects a broader trend in Hollywood where films serve as political tools rather than mere entertainment. Each of these films reinforces a one-sided narrative that glorifies Israeli resilience while vilifying or erasing Palestinian resistance, shaping Western public perception to align with U.S. foreign policy interests. Whether through historical revisionism in Exodus, the glorification of Israeli military strength in Cast a Giant Shadow, or the exploitation of Western fears of Palestinian militancy in Black Sunday, Hollywood has helped justify Israeli policies while suppressing Palestinian narratives.

In my Interstellar Politics course with Professor Wilcox, we discussed how even fictional films with political themes carry indirect ideological messages, subtly influencing public perception. However, in the case of these films, the message is not indirect but explicitly aligned with political agendas. Hollywood’s depiction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict serves as a direct extension of U.S. foreign policy, reinforcing pro-Israel biases while delegitimizing Palestinian resistance. These films exemplify how cinema is often weaponized as soft power, shaping political discourse and justifying real-world policies under the guise of entertainment.

My studies in Media and Politics have been instrumental in helping me critically analyze these films beyond their surface narratives. Through this academic lens, I have been able to deconstruct the intersection of media and political power, understanding how film functions as a tool of influence. This perspective has allowed me to recognize Hollywood’s role in shaping public opinion, reinforcing dominant ideologies, and erasing marginalized voices. By applying the analytical skills gained in my coursework, I have come to see how media is not just a reflection of reality but a powerful force in constructing it.

Furthermore, my Minor has helped me understand how media plays a crucial role in constructing and sustaining hegemonic discourse. The overwhelming emphasis on the Israeli narrative in these films, and in the Hollywood industry as a whole, has contributed to the creation of a dominant discourse on Palestine/Israel, one that actively silences alternative perspectives and claims an authoritative hold on truth.  This selective storytelling not only silences Palestinian voices but also frames the Israeli perspective as the only legitimate one. By reinforcing this narrative, Hollywood normalizes a one-sided portrayal of the conflict, shaping public consciousness while silencing critical engagement with Palestinian history and resistance.

Reference 

Berkman, T., & Shavelson, M. (1966, March 30). Cast a Giant Shadow. IMDb. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060218/

Dajani, N. Z. J. (2000). Arabs in Hollywood: Orientalism in film (T). University of British Columbia. Retrieved from https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/831/items/1.0099552

Frankenheimer, J. (Director). (1977). Black Sunday [Film]. Paramount Pictures.

Preminger, O. (Director). (1960). Exodus [Film]. Carlyle Productions; United Artists.

Rose, E. A. (2004). OPEC’s Dominance of the Global Oil Market: The Rise of the World’s Dependency on Oil. Middle East Journal, 58(3), 424–443. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330033

Shaheen, J. G. (2006). Reel Bad Arabs | Free Films For Context On Israel's War On Gaza [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-xj7FKoKFQ

Shaheen, J. G. (2003). Reel bad Arabs: How Hollywood vilifies a people. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 588(1), 171-193. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1049860

Shavelson, M. (Director). (1966). Cast a Giant Shadow [Film]. United Artists.

Youvan, D. C. (2024). In the light of Gaza: Unraveling 'Exodus' as a tool of propaganda. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378547100

Images: https://images.app.goo.gl/M3rZfJqk5m2GEMCJA

mages: https://images.app.goo.gl/dT4WhX2SjkLGmSwN7 

Images: https://images.app.goo.gl/rhxVvuLPWQ6uyQRSA