Reception
The film itself, as well as Ismael Khatib's decision to donate his killed son's organs, attracted worldwide attention. The international interest in the film and Ismael Khatib's actions inspired the Italian city of Cuneo to found a youth centre in Jenin's refugee camp. There had been a lack of cultural institutions especially for young people in Jenin. Director Marcus Vetter, who had spent a longer period of time in Jenin during the filming, also began to work with young people and to offer film workshops. In Ismael Khatib's youth center, the young people worked on their own short films - and realized that there was no place to show them. Together with Ismael Khatib and his translator Fakhri Hamad, Marcus Vetter became aware of the old cinema in the heart of the city of Jenin, which had been closed since the beginning of the first Intifada in 1987. Thus came about the idea of creating the project Cinema Jenin, which initially aimed at reopening the old cinema and has meanwhile grown to become one of the largest social entrepreneurship companies in the West Bank.
In 2010, Ismael Khatib was awarded the Hessian Peace Prize in the Wiesbaden State Parliament in Germany. For the first time ever, this prize was awarded to a simple man and not to a world leader. The laudatory speech was given by the former Israeli ambassador to Germany, Avi Primor, who described how difficult Khatib's gesture of peace had been in the tense situation in Israel. "Most people would have thought of revenge," Primor said. Khatib resisted this impulse even when families of the saved Israeli children received him in a hostile manner. Primor quoted Jewish and Islamic beliefs, stating that in both religions the idea exists that whoever saves a life saves the whole world. "You saved the world five times". Primor ended his speech with a simple gesture, his last word being "Shukran", which in Arabic, Khatib's language, means "thank you".
Critical response in German media
The paper Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote: "[...] A journey through occupied territories and prejudiced hearts – the story of a man, who no longer fights against his enemies but confuses them with his humanity. [...] The Heart of Jenin skilfully connects Ismael Khatibs personal story with the political background: images of a Palestinian suicide attack, of destroyed buildings in Jenin after an Israeli military operation, desperate people on either side, who are left with nothing." [2]
German newspaper Tagesspiegel called the case
"[...] an unambiguously good deed, which resulted in more irritation than a suicide attack could ever have. Defiantly, it goes beyond the brutal logic of this conflict and is at the same time just as compelling: These children with new organs really exist, this fact cannot be argued away. Even the political enemies must acknowledge it. It is not impossible that even Ismael Khatib's anger at his child's death is part of this gesture." [3]
The German film assessment board rated the film "highly recommended": "The German director and his Israeli colleague follow this exceptional story right from the start and, at the same time, show a cross-section of the lives of different people in the crisis area between military presence and cultural prejudices. An admirable, humane and politically highly relevant plea that doesn't fail to take effect. Absolutely worth seeing!" [4]
Critical response in Israeli media
The liberal Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz writes that [o]f the hundreds of tragic tales of children killed during decades of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Ahmed Khatib's must rank among the most remarkable. [...] One of its most touching, and disappointing, sequences is toward the end of the film, when, two years after Ahmed's death, Khatib and his brother embark on a road trip around Israel in a beat-up car to visit the children whose lives they saved. The climax is a confrontation with the Levinson family, who, in an awkward exchange at their Jerusalem home, apologise for their earlier comments and thank Khatib, but betray a deep misunderstanding about life in the occupied West Bank.“ [5]
An author of the German-Israeli online magazine HaGalil on Jewish issues criticized the film on the occasion of its premiere in Jerusalem: “The film is authentic, emotionally charged and impressively well made. [...] A really good film that will certainly win many awards. But at the same time it is a one-sided propagandist film, capable of stirring up anti-Jewish feelings among the German public. [...]“ [6]
