REVIEW of Returning to Haifa an adaptation of the Ghassan Kanafani novella, directed by directed by Zephyr Teachout at Unadilla Theater, Marshfield, VT

I understand that this play was first commissioned by the Public but never produced because of Board pressure.  Artistically and historically, that was an error, but emotionally it was probably a decision consistent with that that many US theater companies would make.  A play that shows Palestinians fleeing in the face of an Israeli assault (sanctioned by the British) and not being allowed to return is not going to be well received in a country that embraces the “justice” of a Zionist cause in the face of tremendous evidence to the contrary.  I am surprised that it has been produced as often as it has.

There is a lot of historic accuracy in this production, but to only watch it for that would miss the main point(s).  The play is really about the toll the occupation took on both the refugees and the occupiers as a couple that fled in 1948 returns to Haifa after the Six Day War to find their old home occupied by a Polish Holocaust Refugee who has adopted and converted the son, they believed they had lost.  The couple and the mother and son must all deal with various levels of guilt and anger caused by the situation, which was largely, but not completely, imposed on them.  But both Palestinian and Jew were not without agency to change that situation 20 years before.  Exercising that agency may have come at a high price for each family.

Umer Farooq, as the Palestinian father, and Nate Krimmel as the Palestinian/Jewish son are particular effective when they debate whether or not environment and upbringing can erase genetics. 

As a play, Returning to Haifa has some structural problems that make it less compelling than it could be.  It starts by showing the parallel journeys of the Palestinian couple in 1948 and their return in 1967.  Showing how much feelings had changed and remained the same over the 20 years.  It continues on this path for a substantial period of time.  But the 1948 couple disappears for a large segment of the play and what could have been an interesting device is lost to the audience. Failing to maintain the early structure causes the viewer to recognize that there is no reason for it to exist. Without the beginning structure, the 1967 story would have been more compelling.  The 1967 characters could have and do explain their 1948 journey later in the play.   The guilt over actions that both the Palestinian couple and Jewish woman must confront or have lived with for 20 years gives a humanity to both factions that Kanafari may have easily, and prejudicially, ignored.

Returning to Haifa is an important play that does not gloss over the atrocities committed in the name of eliminating atrocities.  But reworked it could be a much more compelling vehicle for relating the tragedies it addresses without losing the humanity that makes it significant.