An Interview with co-directors Jason Osder and William Lafi Youmans

The cogent documentary, Who Killed Alex Odeh?, codirected by Jason Osder and William Lafi Youmans, investigates the unsolved 1985 assassination of a Palestinian living in Santa Ana, California. Alex Odeh was working as the West Coast regional director for the Arab-American Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) when a pipe bomb, triggered by a trip wire, killed him on a Friday morning. Odeh had worked to combat negative images of Arabs in America as well as with various Jewish groups in the area. (He was supposed to speak at a local Jewish Community Center the night of his death). There is a suggestion that comments he made during a recent TV interview may have triggered his murder. 

Osder and Youmans follow the cold case with the assistance of writer David Sheen, who has reported on far-right extremism in Israel. Who Killed Alex Odeh? profiles three suspects – Robert Manning, Israel/Keith Fuchs (aka Izzy), and Andy Green (aka Baruch Ben Yosef), who were all members of the Jewish Defense League (JDL), a militant group spearheaded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, that claimed no connection to the bombing. 

The filmmakers focus on Kahane and the JDL, featuring chilling interviews and footage that includes fiery talk show appearances and a clip of Irving Rubin, a chairman of the JDL, who claimed that Odeh “got what he deserved.” 

William Lafi Youmans – Courtesy of Sundance Institute.

Jason Osder – Courtesy of Sundance Institute.

The film’s purpose is to examine not just the folks responsible for Odeh’s murder, but also how the investigation stalled for decades. The FBI repeatedly tells Alex’s widow, Norma, that the case is a “top priority,” but she acknowledges this is merely lip service. As Sheen easily identifies and locates the three JDL suspects, and even meets one of them in person, it suggests the FBI is not pursuing this case with any urgency. Codirector Osder also interviews a suspect in the film on camera. 

Who Killed Alex Odeh? is fascinating as three individuals help the filmmakers and Sheen draw some conclusions. One is a prisoner known as “V,” who claims he heard comments about who was responsible for the bombing, but it needs corroboration. A former JDL member, Daniel Gillis, expresses his thoughts about the suspects and the crime, which may connect some data points. And a former Santa Ana police detective, Hugh Mooney, reveals some details about the investigation that are useful. 

Throughout the film, there are poignant scenes of Alex’s wife Norma, and his daughter, Helena, wanting answers and bemoaning the fact that they have lived without a husband and father. 

Osder and Youmans spoke with Senses of Cinema about Who Killed Alex Odeh? in advance of its premiere at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, where the film won the U.S. Documentary Special Jury Award for Journalistic Excellence. 

– G.K.

How did you learn of Alex Odeh, and what prompted you to investigate his murder? 

WLY: I grew up in the Arab American community. I am of Arab descent on my mum’s side; she is Palestinian. When I was five years old, I went around with members of my family to help recruit new members for the ADC. That was before Alex was killed. We were part of that whole organisation. I was only seven years old when he was killed, so I can’t remember anything about it at the time. But growing up, we talked a lot about it, and I heard a lot about it at community events. It was a cautionary tale – the dangers of being too vocal or outspoken on the issue of Palestinian rights. I knew the story at this folkloric level. In 2012, I was at a meeting with people from ADC who were talking about bringing back the campaign for justice [for Alex]. I said you needed to find a documentary filmmaker to put together a really powerful feature on the case. Shortly after that, I saw Let the Fire Burn [about the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia] and thought about the commonalities of political violence and marginalised communities and who is a terrorist and who is not in that equation. Both Alex’s murder and the MOVE bombing happened in 1985. We talked about the Odeh case, and I realised Jason knew only the most generic version of the story. It drove me down a research path. 

Did you think going into the film that you would “solve” this cold case? 

JO: Going in, we didn’t know what we would discover. We thought early on it was a history, something primarily in the past. But we quickly realised there were threads to the present. We were dedicated to following something. What were we going to follow? The possibility existed that we would follow cases being brought, or indictments, or get access to the U.S. government. But it wasn’t that type of film. It was a lesson that in trying to follow something active about this case, it made for very difficult filmmaking. We wanted to allow things to unfold for us, and there wasn’t much unfolding. We found ourselves uncomfortably pushing in areas. David Sheen entering the picture some years later. We never wanted to be the centre of attention in the documentary. David gave us that investigative force. We still did not follow justice; we followed a miscarriage of justice. We would like to see indictments, which is a form of justice, but even bringing people to account does not bring Alex back. So, what is the form of justice a documentary can do? Bring something to light and provide recognition for the family, allowing them to be seen and their story to be known.

Alex Odeh, Norma Odeh and Helena Odeh appear in Who Killed Alex Odeh? – Courtesy of Sundance Institute | photo by Helki Frantzen.

It is suggested in the film that the comments Alex Odeh made on TV the night before his murder was what triggered his assassination. Do you agree with that? Was he a target? As the film reveals in audio clips, he had received threats in the past.

WLY I am working on a book on the Alex Odeh case, and I spent a lot of time trying to figure this out. There are a lot of theories. A plausible timeline is that Alex is a target as a revenge killing for Leon Klinghoffer, [who was killed during the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking] which gives the suspects two or three days. There was no way they could have taken all the steps necessary to carry out Alex’s murder between the time of the interview and the bombing. We are talking of 8-9 hours at most between his TV appearance and his death. The feasibility of pulling that off – maybe he was already a target, and the interview was a coincidence? Or they were targeting the ADC, and he wasn’t the intended target? There are all these complexities. We couldn’t resolve these details, so to keep the story moving, and for the sake of the narrative, we left it as an open question.

JO: In the JDL’s mythology and telling of the story, these events are connected. We have doubts about the motivation or it being an exact trigger. But in the aftermath, you hear one of the people who goes on camera with us associating these events. They claimed [Odeh’s killing] was for his speaking up at that moment for Palestinian Arab humanity. There is also a powerful parallel in the reaction to the murder of Leon Klinghoffer and the murder of Alex Odeh. In the response to the killing of Klinghoffer, the Reagan government goes absolutely hog wild. They break international laws, and force a plane to land, and bring down the Italian government. They stop at nothing to get these terrorists. But in the Odeh case, there is a lack of resolve. Resolve looks like catching the [perpetrators] no matter what; we don’t care what laws we break. The response to Alex’s murder is quite different. It speaks to which victims get justice and which perpetrators are branded as terrorists. If the question is: Did he go on TV and that caused them to kill him?, we’re not that confident. Do the two stories intertwine in history? Absolutely. 

Can you talk about constructing the film? It toggles back and forth in time, incorporates photographs and film clips, interviews and news footage that provide context to the murder. What was your process?

JO: There was a lot of editorial time on this film. It was always the intention to weave between the present and the past and those moments had to really work. If a documentary is done well, it seems like everything is meant to be exactly where it is. But you only get there by trying every other combination of things. It is anything but natural. We worked with multiple editors and took breaks and had screenings and kept pushing about what makes it better.

One could argue that your agenda here is to provide an expose of sorts on the JDL. In documenting Rabbi Meir Kahane, what decisions did you make in how you featured him and the JDL in the film? There are some incendiary moments, but every sidebar was fascinating. 

WLY In the archive, there is such an inherent bias because Meir Kahane was very vocal, and very public. He sought the limelight and believed that violence was a way of getting media coverage and articulated that as his philosophy early on. There are websites dedicated to being repositories of news articles and his speeches, so we had this massive amount of Kahane material. On the other hand, Alex avoided being in the limelight and wanted to be more of an organiser behind the scenes. He did not thrust himself into public appearances and only did so reluctantly, so we have very little on the archival side for Alex. We were conscious early on – Is this becoming a JDL film? We found more archive of [the Arab American] community which was buried in people’s garages and storage closets. After we found that, we worked hard to construct a balance. 

Helena Odeh appears in Who Killed Alex Odeh? – Courtesy of Sundance Institute | photo by Therese Tran.

JO: The themes that tie together for me are impunity and extremism. If we did well with the film, it shows how the lack of justice for an act of violence allows for an extremist way of thinking to grow. That is the thematic connection. It’s oversimplified to say that if these three suspects had been brought to justice, then Kahanism would not have risen up as the force it has become in Israeli politics. We wanted to show how when extremism and hate-based violence is allowed to be swept under the carpet, it grows stronger. 

How did you connect with David Sheen and get him to investigate the JDL cell believed to be responsible for Alex Odeh’s murder? 

WLY: We reached out to the widow of Robert Friedman [who wrote the book The False Prophet: Rabbi Meir Kahane – From FBI Informant to Knesset Member] to find out if we could get access to his papers. In 2019 we got a message from her that David Sheen, another reporter, had come around and she put us in touch. We talked to him and got to know him a bit and started followed his reporting. He was what we needed for where we were. We had a lot of background material and worked with the family to get them comfortable, but there was still that missing investigative impetus. Sheen’s reporting really sparked it. He has taken a lot of risks in Israel and covering extremism and Kahanism on the ground. We had to ask: Is this appropriate? Is this ethical? We had to caution him, but he knew all this and took risks, so we followed what he was doing.

There is an interesting scene of Jason meeting with Andy Green aka Baruch Ben Yosef. Can you talk about that moment, and how it happened? Why you think he agreed? It is interesting how Jason handles the interview. 

JO: I think part of the story is that these people feel very comfortable. Andy Green/Baruch Ben Yosef is not sitting around thinking, “I hope the FBI isn’t going to knock on my door to talk about this 1985 bombing.” He is living a public life and is on YouTube and considers himself an activist around the complex issue of the Temple Mount and the Temple Mount [Faithful] movement. He is among the most virulent of Israeli right-wing provocateurs. As a Jewish American with a certain look about me, certain Israelis have an expectation and a desire to bring people who look like me into fold. Without lying to him, I allowed him to see that potential in me to consider making Aliyah – that desire to populate this place with a certain type of Jews that are appealing.

We had a big debate about how much rope to lead. I spoke with him, and he wanted me to come up to the Temple Mount. He invited me to participate in this activity of bringing Jews onto the mosque complex to do certain activities that push the limits of the status quo in terms of religious activities and what’s allowed and provoke response and then often have protection by the IDF. I did it, and they confiscated our cameras, so I only got it on cell phone. I said I’d like to sit down with you to get quality audio of this interview. And then we said, “How far do we push this?” We are going to have him there, he will be mic’d up, and on camera. Are we going to push the question or play it out more to embed with his movement? We realised embedding with his movement was beyond realistic, so once we have him sitting down, we will ask him the question [about Alex]. Some of the things he says about his philosophy, and Kahanism, are revealing before he is challenged with an accusation. We agreed as a team on a plan, and we executed that plan. We didn’t know what was going to happen. As a filmmaker, you decide what cards you plan to play, you play them, and you let it happen. I didn’t know how to feel after the interview, but I felt we did what we set out to do. 

How did you secure some of the leads you get from V, and Daniel Gillis, and Hugh Mooney? What prompted them to talk to you on camera given what they say?

WLY: They have very different motives. V is the most interesting in a way because he is in prison for another crime, and he thinks his cooperation can get some sort of proffer from the feds. He has a particular motive, which is why Helena [Alex Odeh’s daughter] is sceptical about his testimony. Mooney is a local law enforcement type, who gets frustrated when they have been sidelined in an investigation in their backyard. The FBI came in and said, “Out of the way, I’m in charge!” Local law enforcement obviously resents that because this is their community. That drove him to speak. He is retired and not beholden to the code of secrecy that FBI agents have. We tried to get the FBI agents to speak, and some came close to agreeing, but they needed permission from headquarters and none of them got it. This happens a lot in these kinds of films – you find the local people on the scene, and they are freer to speak. They had friends who had had passed away that had worked on the case and were frustrated by it not being closed. There was a loyalty to do something because they were not happy where it ended up.

JO: Daniel Gillis bought into the JDL as a young man. He was brought in seeking a sense of belonging and they are influenced like in a gang or cult scenario. He said, “The JDL appealed to me because I wanted to fight Nazis.” He was really upset and offended with the plans they had that endangered children. That is when he turned and became a confidential informer around that motivation. I think he had the desire to clear the air. He sees himself as a good guy and when the people he was hanging out with turned a corner, doing things that he felt were not acceptable, he drew a moral line. Being able to tell that story and be more public was important to him. That makes sense to me. He was quite a young man when he was influenced by the older generation of the JDL.

WLY: He was interesting because he talked about having Arab and Muslim friends. As they tried to lure him into this anti-Arab/anti-Muslim organisation. He felt that speaking out was a way to distance himself from it. He showed a lot of empathy for the Odeh family in the interviews. I also liked that it broke up how we portrayed the JDL.

What can you say about the legal issues raised in the film? Your film is critical of the FBI’s investigation. To make a film like this, are you in danger of being sued?

WLY: I don’t think so. If you are a suspect in a murder, usually, you don’t want to draw too much attention to yourself. If a film comes out and it’s big, there is attention so they may pursue legal means to suppress it. We feel under U.S. law, when it comes to defamation – although Trump tries to make it more plaintiff friendly – there are a lot of protections in place for having truth on your side. We have documentation, and records, and the prior reporting of Friedman. If you have been described as a suspect in reporting over a long time, it becomes a lot harder to sue if you haven’t sued a previous publisher of it. We don’t make any real new claims about who are the suspects. Our bigger fish to fry in this is the U.S. government. The FBI can’t really sue for defamation, but with the Trump administration, maybe all bets are off. Risk is a part of it. David Sheen took a lot of risks, physical and legal. The family took a lot of emotional risks and have a lot of fear about the consequences for them. I personally would love the opportunity to use discovery to learn more info about the suspects. That is ultimately why they wouldn’t go beyond the threats because they become vulnerable. But who knows? Everything we predicted is usually wrong. [laughs].

JO: We want to poke a hornet’s nest. 

WLY: Then the hornets come out. 

Your film is a case study which has greater implications. What are your thoughts about the larger ideas in the film that may speak to issues of importance for Israelis and Palestinians as well as Arabs in America? 

WLY: My book is focused on citizenship and equal citizenship for the Arab American community. We felt there is a struggle for equal citizenship and to be valued as a community. When there is a crime committed against the community, it should be taken to the full extent of the legal process as with any other community. That is also why the Achille Lauro contrast hurts so much for the Arab American community. It is not just on the law enforcement side. That President Ronald Reagan didn’t call [Alex’s widow] Norma is remembered and still talked about today. So there is no recognition that this community belongs or are seen as equals in the United States. That is the larger implication. On the larger Palestine issue and genocide In Gaza, we couldn’t get that into the film in a way that makes sense, but we want to invite and leave audiences with the opportunity to think about dehumanisation and extremism. That’s why we gesture to who is in the government today.

JO: Will got to the point I wanted to make. Many American Jews realise that supporting Jewish people doesn’t mean supporting the current Israeli government. The reasons and the history of how things got to where they are is not what this film is about. But it does provide evidence of why the moral stance might not be to support Netanyahu and his backers in the present government.

Do you think your film provides a sense of closure for the case, and for Alex’s family? 

WLY: In interacting with them in the lead up to Sundance, I’ve never seen them feeling positive, or optimistic, or excited about some aspect of this. Working with them year to year, usually on the anniversary of the bombing, it was more focused on grieving and frustration, on the lack of progress in the case. Closure might be too far afield, but the best thing the film can do is provide some narrative repair and give them a sense of larger public recognition. The press coverage wasn’t there. They felt unseen. Maybe the film can do that. They don’t necessarily believe that an indictment and a conviction would make them whole again or give them closure.