Documentary on Rhino 'Shalom' Offers Political Parallels, Author Disagrees
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
A documentary titled 'Shalom' uses a rhinoceros at the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo as a political symbol, drawing parallels to Israel, but author Tali Shtakelberg argues the film misses key aspects of daily life. The film explores animal euthanasia and compares the confined rhino to Palestinian zoo employee Rushdi, suggesting a shared sense of imprisonment. Shtakelberg offers a counter-perspective, emphasizing the employees' fulfillment in their work and suggesting that personal agency and doing good are paths to freedom. She believes the film's message about societal improvement through observing animal care could be beneficial if widely seen.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Documentary 'Shalom' uses a rhino at Jerusalem's Biblical Zoo as a political symbol for Israel.
- Author Tali Shtakelberg critiques the film's political parallels as incomplete.
- The film touches on animal euthanasia, a practice the author finds ethically difficult.
- It compares the rhino's confinement to that of Palestinian zoo employee Rushdi.
- Shtakelberg argues that personal agency and doing good are key to freedom.
- The author believes the film's message on societal improvement could be beneficial.
A documentary titled 'Shalom' presents Shalom the rhinoceros as a political symbol, drawing parallels to the reality of Israel. However, author Tali Shtakelberg argues that this microcosm of the Jerusalem Biblical Zoo misses crucial aspects of daily life.
Shalom the rhinoceros, born on the day the peace treaty with Egypt was signed in 1979, lived to be 44 years old, reaching the upper limit of his expected lifespan. The film touches upon the difficult subject of animal euthanasia, a practice Shtakelberg finds ethically challenging due to the inability of animals to give explicit consent.
The film draws a comparison between Shalom, depicted as confined, and Rushdi, a Palestinian zoo employee also shown near bars and enclosures, suggesting he, and by extension all Palestinians, are similarly confined. Shtakelberg counters this by highlighting that both Rushdi and another employee, Hisham, are engaged in work they love, caring for animals at the zoo, and engage in deep conversations with colleagues like Gilad Moshe.
Shtakelberg views the zoo as a microcosm of Israeli society and its interactions with Palestinian society. She suggests that the film's critique of the Israeli government's handling of crime implies that law enforcement requires internal cooperation, particularly from those seeking assistance. The author believes that personal agency and a focus on doing good are key to achieving freedom.
Overall, Shtakelberg finds the approximately 68-minute documentary to be well-made, offering an authentic portrayal of zoo life and its difficult decisions. She laments that the intended audience, who she believes could benefit from observing animal care as a model for societal improvement, may not watch it.
