The meaning behind “Territory”

“Territory” videoclip presents a profound reflection on the destructive nature of war and its inherent contradiction with the fundamental principle of life. It questions the logic of persisting in a state of war that inevitably leads to the annihilation of both the adversary and the victor, due to the catastrophic repercussions of mass extermination and environmental devastation, essential elements for the survival of civilization.

But the war argument is the visible part of the problem. Behind it are the agents of war, those individuals who seek war to control society, manipulate it and lead it to death for the sole purpose of exalting their megalomania.

The music video shows these two realities through the narrative of the song and the construction of images that specifically allude to the Middle East conflict between Israel and the Arab world.

Let’s start with the conceptual part. “Territory” in its lyrical composition recurrently alludes to the figure of the sovereign and the concentration of power. In the philosophical writings of Thomas Hobbes we recognize this figure as a socio-political construction necessary for the survival of civilization. Society grants the sovereign the absolute power of its direction to avoid barbarism and self-destructive anarchism. There is certainly a supreme and noble purpose in this understanding of power in suppressing individuality for a greater purpose of collective order. However, what the video reflects does not allude to a noble end, but a selfish one. The figure of the sovereign is corrupted by individual interest, the annulment of the other as a cultural enemy. But it also alludes to the use of technological means as part of a social engineering strategy that aims to manipulate the will of the masses to control them at the whim of the sovereign.

In the visual construction, this message is reinforced by taking as an example Israel’s conflict with the Arab world and the nations that surround it. We are not going to make a historical review of this well-known conflict, but it is important to highlight some clues that the video leaves us.

In fact, the video begins with a direct shot of a religious altar, which allows us to contextualize the cultural origin of the conflict. What is in dispute are not only territories, but meanings of life strongly influenced by religion.

Then we see street takeovers with clear Arabic inscriptions on the walls that would allude to a sense of collective nonconformity with the imposition of the Israeli state. We see the phrase “Israel with the Golan” as a manifestation of this discomfort. The Golan is a strategic territory that Israel claimed for itself on the assumption that its military power allowed it to do so. The following sequences, indeed, show Israel’s armament might in the region from war tanks to sophisticated communication equipment. In addition, the delimitation of the territory is visually highlighted with barbed wires and military guards, which gives us to understand that the region is highly conflictive.

The video presents a sequence of meticulously intercut shots that highlight the marked contrast between the vast urban panorama and the vastness of an arid, desolate desert. This visual juxtaposition sends a powerful message: the escalating military conflict between Israel and the Arab nations could escalate to the point of massive devastation. The potential use of advanced weaponry, such as a nuclear bomb, threatens to transform urban centers into uninhabitable desert wastelands, a grim reminder of the consequences of war in the modern era.

An additional series of captivating images refers to the front pages of prominent news media that, on the one hand, highlight Israel’s military preeminence and, on the other, the political players who orchestrate the current situation as if it were a strategic chess game, where the shrewdest and most resourceful prevail. In addition, political maps from the middle of the previous century are exhibited, with the purpose of making viewers understand the drastic change that the allocation of territories to the State of Israel meant in the geopolitics of the Arab world.

At the end we see images of the civilian population affected by the conflict. They are depicted as simple people enjoying a casual encounter with their families and friends. This reference is very powerful because it indicates that those affected by the conflict are the common people who earn a humble living and the families behind with children and women who have nothing to do with a millenary dispute of religious, political and military circles that yearn to destroy each other at any cost. In the end what we have to understand is that this is a dirty power game where the innocent and weak are the most affected.