9 Star Hotel is the facetious name that Palestinian construction workers give to the pile of rocks that marks their clandestine nightly abode — a group of cardboard enclosures and tin-covered huts hidden in the brush-covered hills above the Israeli town of Modi'in. It is also the name of this week's P.O.V. film about the daily travails of these "illegals" as they hide from police at night so that they can work in Modi'in during the day.
The Palestinian men are neither militants nor activists, but ordinary youths placed by history in extraordinary circumstances who emerge as fully human — flawed and sympathetic. Caught in a strange and dangerous no-man's land between an Israel that must enforce laws to protect its citizens and a Palestinian Authority that can't or won't help them, they must risk capture and live in makeshift shelters simply to survive.
As a film made by an Israeli that takes the point of view of its young Palestinian subjects, 9 Star Hotel holds out a model for understanding, even across significant divides. The vérité-style documentary reminds viewers that behind all the political contention that so often defines regions like the West Bank, there are human stories. The film's subjects face universal struggles to make a living, care for family and prove their manhood. Individual tragedy is counterbalanced by resilience as the young men dream of a brighter future, despite the uncertainties that define their current situation.
Ahmed has no hope of fulfilling his dream of becoming police officer because he can't read and write. How is the experience of the men in the film like or unlike the experiences of day laborers or undocumented workers in other places? How is their situation like or unlike other places where borders divide areas of wealth and poverty?
Reflecting on Israel's treatment of Palestinians, Muhammad says, "If you shut a cat in a room, won't it jump at you?" If you could recommend to the Israeli government one policy change that would improve the lives of the men in the film, what would you recommend and why? Assume that the Palestinian Authority was not constrained politically. Similarly, what one policy change would you recommend to the Palestinian Authority?
Kieran Fitzgerald is the director of The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández. After the film aired on July 8, viewers wrote in with questions for Kieran on the P.O.V. Blog. Read on as he answers questions about the equipment used in making the film, the decision to include President George W. Bush in the story and more.
Robert asks: Hi. What equipment did you use to shoot and edit your documentary?
Kieran Fitzgerald: We used a Canon XL2 for all of the interviews. The recreation still photos were taken from 16mm footage. We edited on Final Cut Pro.
Rob asks: In 1997 Bill Clinton was president. Why did you feel like Bush should play such a prominent role in your show?
Fitzgerald: Until the end of the film, Bush Sr. and Clinton have equal screen time. The narration explains that the Clinton administration increased the military's participation in the 'War on Drugs' and there is a clip of Clinton declaring that he will fight the drug trade more rigorously than Bush. The film is highly critical, I believe, of the way both the Pentagon and the Department of Justice under Clinton handled the Hernández case.
Bush Sr. reappears at the end of the film for two reasons: I felt it was important for people to know about the posse comitatus law that prohibits military from acting as law enforcement on domestic soil (Bush Sr. was in charge of bypassing this law during the Reagan administration); and I wanted to tell the story of the Madrid family's connection with George H.W. and Barbara Bush.
For me, the ending of the film is not an attack on the Bush family at all — it is an anecdote that demonstrates how the top of our government can be closely related to families in the most remote parts of our country. As Enrique Madrid says, it shows 'how small the United States is.' I believe it is important for any president, Republican or Democrat, to remember that border communities are also a part of the greater American community.
Justin asks: Hernández mistook the marines as a dog, the marines mistook Hernández as a combatant drug dealer. BOTH were wrong. Who shot first? Would you have done a 2.5 hr. film on the marine, (his family and any other person you could find) who may have died because of a gun shot inflicted from Hernández? Doubtly.
Fitzgerald: You may be right that had Hernández accidentally shot one of the Marines I wouldn't have made a film about it. Part of what attracted me to this story was its dramatic detail — the way misinformation and poor decisions kept escalating toward the tragic conclusion. I was drawn first to the nature of the story, not to its political implications.
That said, I believe that the political implications had a Marine been shot instead would be no different. In both cases, we do a disservice to our own troops by expecting them to act as law enforcement within the United States after training them to fight wars. Whether a soldier gets shot at, or shoots an innocent American and has to live with the consequences, they are victims of the same misguided policy.
Josiah says: This documentary's fact checking is very questionable... 1970 at Kent State was not the last time the military killed American civilians, 1992 during the L.A. riots three were killed by the Army National Guard, all three were fully justified. It seems like you wanted to make the inference that whenever the military is involved in stateside action, only innocent people are killed. That is absolutely wrong and I hope you and your staff makes the appropriate corrections.
I know about those three because my dad was in the California National Guard (185th Armor) and was one of the first 2,000 Guardsmen sent to the riots. I'm also sure that if some real research is done more examples could be found between 1970 and 1997, most likely fully justified.
I do agree with you that the military should never be involved with non-emergency law enforcement activities. Only in riots or natural disasters were the existing law enforcement is disabled is the only time they should be called in.
Fitzgerald: You are right about the L.A. riots, but I am not aware of any other instances in which [the] National Guard killed American civilians between Kent State and Esequiel's death. As far as the active duty military goes, it's my understanding that the last civilian death, prior to Hernández in 1997, occurred during the 1967 Detroit riots. (We have consulted with a number of academics on this subject).
In neglecting to mention the L.A. riots it was not at all my intention to imply that [the] military are exclusively involved in unjustified killings at home. What I did want to imply, and perhaps I should have been more explicit in this regard, is that Esequiel was the first 'innocent' civilian to be killed by active duty military or National Guard since Kent State — that is, his was the first unjustified killing.
It sounded like a perfect partnership. Renowned sculptor John Houser dreamed of building the world's tallest bronze equestrian statue, a stunning monument to the Spanish conquistador Juan de Oñate that would pay tribute to the contributions Hispanic people made to building the American West. The city of El Paso, Texas, was looking to improve its economic fortunes and thought Houser's statue would increase revenues by creating a significant tourist attraction that would celebrate the city's Hispanic heritage. What both partners failed to consider was that different segments of the community remembered Juan de Oñate in very different ways.The Last Conquistador documents the conflict that resulted when Native Americans and members of the Acoma Indian community brought to attention the fact that Juan de Oñate nearly wiped out their ancestors and sold them into slavery. Though violence was associated with nearly all conquistadors, Oñate was so brutal that he was actually recalled to Mexico City, put on trial and convicted for the acts he committed.
El Paso quickly divided along lines of race and class, forcing the artist to face the unanticipated moral implications of his work and city leaders to wrestle with a decision to spend public money on a tribute to such a controversial man. After completion of the statue, everyone was forced to come to terms with a landmark that is viewed by some as a monument to culture and others as a glorification of genocide.
Houser says about Oñate, "It's not up to me to defend him
or accuse him." What is the role and responsibility of the artist to the community when creating public art?
Maurus Chino says, "Violence is violence; genocide is genocide, and there has to be recognition about what really happened." In response to suggestions that it is time for the Acoma to "let go" of the past or "get over it," a Native American man says, "Our city is thinking about putting up a statue
of an individual that massacred or tried to wipe us off the face of the eart... You're going to tell your
grandchildren, 'I remember 9/11.' Well, we remember Juan de Oñate."
In response to criticism of the monument's subject, Conchita Lucero asks, "Which one of us hasn't had a benefit of the things that the Spanish brought?"
The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández tells a frightening and cautionary tale about the dangers of using military as domestic law enforcement — a role that the military, under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, had been prohibited from taking. In 1997, U.S. Marines patrolling the Texas-Mexican border as part of the U.S. war on drugs shot and killed Esequiel Hernández Jr. Mistaken for a drug runner, the 18 year old was, in fact, a U.S. citizen tending his family's goats. The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández, a 90-minute documentary, explores this tragedy and its aftermath from multiple points of view, including Esequiel's parents, siblings, and friends, the Marines on patrol and FBI investigators.
As the story unfolds the film raises as many questions as it answers.
TV personality Bill O'Reilly dismisses the incident saying "accidents will happen in any military deployment," and challenges viewers asking, "What is the harm in giving us more protection by using the military the way they should be used? If you read the Constitution, the military's primary mandate is to protect the borders of the United States!"
Congressman Tom Tancredo says of the shooting that such accidents have to be balanced against the need for national security. In what ways does drug interdiction contribute to national security? Is there a difference between "national interest" and "national security"?
FBI Case Agent Jane Kelly says "If [the Marines] had been any domestic law enforcement personnel, sheriff's deputy, Texas Rangers, FBI, they would have gone to jail." What are the differences between law enforcement and the military? Which is better suited to patrol the border and why?
The Ballad of Esequiel Hernández raises critical public policy issues related to the militarization of the border, the human cost of the war on drugs, the blurring of lines between the military and law enforcement and finding justice for an American family who has lost a son. What lessons does the death of Esequiel Hernández offer regarding the current deployment of National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexican border?
