Yesterday I posted the speech by the makers of “No Other Land,” which won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature, if only to show Samuel L Jackson’s epic reaction from behind them on stage.
Today I want to focus on the dishonesty of the film and the filmmakers.
The Film Is Highly Misleading And One-Sided
I should preface my remarks by admitting I have not seen the film. But I feel I can make certain assumptions based on media reports, the Oscars speech, and the documentary’s trailer and synopsis:
A young Palestinian activist named Basel Adra has been resisting the forced displacement of his people by Israel’s military in Masafer Yatta, a region in the West Bank, since he was a child. He records the gradual destruction of his homeland, where Israeli soldiers are tearing down homes and evicting their inhabitants in order to enforce a court order maintaining that the area has been legally designated as a military firing zone. He befriends Yuval, a Jewish Israeli journalist who helps him in his struggle. They form an unexpected bond, but their friendship is challenged by the huge gap between their living conditions: Basel faces constant oppression and violence, while Yuval enjoys freedom and security.
From this, it seems to me the film characterizes the issue of Masafer Yatta as a people being torn away from their rightful homeland by an oppressive regime, based on ideas of ethnic supremacy. This is highly misleading and disindigenous, and one needs to understand the history of the area and the reason for the eviction orders.
A Brief History of Masafer Yatta
During the Ottoman & British Mandate Periods, the area was sparsely populated by Arab families who historically practiced semi-nomadic herding and lived in caves and small structures. Even anti-Israel websites refer to them as Bedouins (although not the same as the Negev Bedouins). Even the name of the area hints to the sparse population; the name Masafer is believed to derive from the Arabic words for ‘traveling’, in light of the distance needed to travel from Yatta, or ‘nothing’ in light of the local belief that “nothing” would be able to live in the area.
The area came under Jordanian control after the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, and reverted to Israel after our victory in the Six Day War.
Always sparsely populated by these communities, Israel designated a large portion of Masafer Yatta as an area for military training in the 1980s.
While the haters claim the decision was made with the intent to control land and limit palestinian Arab presence in strategic areas, Israel had very real security reasons for the designation:
- The terrain is suitable for military training with its hilly and rocky landscape, sparse vegetation, and cave networks.
- It is a strategic location near the Green Line, making it a key location for security operations
- Its relatively low population density means the IDF could train without large-scale civilian disruption
By the way, there have been a fair few terrorist attacks perpetrated by residents of the area.
Israeli Supreme Court Ruling
The case went to the Israeli Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the state, allowing the Israeli government to evict the Arab residents from the area:
- The court accepted the Israeli government’s claim that the area was legally designated as a military training zone in the 1980s, since according to Israeli law, civilians cannot reside in active military zones, and this designation predated the legal battle over palestinian Arab residency.
- The security necessity of maintaining a firing zone for military exercises outweighed the claims of the residents.
- The residents failed to prove continuous, permanent residency before the area was declared a firing zone. Aerial photos and historical records suggested that the villages were not formally established as permanent communities before the designation.
- While the plaintiffs argued that they had lived in cave dwellings and small villages in Masafer Yatta for generations, the court ruled that living in caves and using the land seasonally for herding did not constitute legal permanent residency under Israeli law.
- The court sided with the Israeli military’s claim that the state had legal jurisdiction over the area since the palestinian Arab communities did not have formal land ownership documents under Israeli law.
It is also important to note that contacts were held between local authorities and the military authorities regarding the use of the area for grazing and farming purposes, but not for permanent residence. A compromise was reached under which farmers and shepherds were allowed to enter during times when training was not taking place, mainly on weekends and on Israeli holidays. The IDF was even willing to refrain from holding training for two one-month periods each year, to allow for sowing and harvesting in the area and for grazing purposes. While the compromise outline was presented to the representative of those residing on the land, the petitioners claimed that they were not a party to that agreement and that it did not bind them.
Whether or not one emphathizes with the nomadic palestinian Arabs who lived in the area at the time, the idea this was their homeland or their evictions are the result of an oppressive land grab are not borne by fact. This is a legal issue based on very real historical realities and security needs – something I am sure the film does not address.
At the end of the day, had the Arabs laid down their arms and accepted a Jewish state when declared in 1948, these military needs would not exist, and the reality would be different. The root cause of all of this is Arab intransigence and refusal to accept Jewish sovereignty in the area (i.e. Arab supremacy), the exact opposite of the supposed “Jewish supremacy” as is propogated by the film.
Film Contains Staged Scenes
The court found that some residents had expanded construction in the area even though the injunctions were meant to freeze the situation. The court saw it as an act of bad faith, which actually strengthened the court’s decision to rule in favor of the state and lift the injunctions. It was this ruling that allowed the IDF to proceed with evictions and demolitions.
No Other Land was filmed primarily between 2021 and 2023, which means before and after these demolitions and evictions following the Israeli Supreme Court ruling of May 2022. The Gazawood X account’s claim that “They built in a prohibited area precisely so that the IDF would demolish their homes, allowing them to document and publicize it” is highly credible.
Those behind the Gazawood account, who have seen the film, also note how at 11:15 in it, Basel Adra explicitly says:
“I think we can stop the eviction. It will happen if we document and work on the ground.”
This is essentially an admission on camera of staging.
According to Ha’aretz (May 9, 2022), Adra was beaten while he was recording the IDF taking down a makeshift structure someone had built there.
This occurred weeks after the court ruling, again suggesting they were doing something against the court ruling to provoke a reaction for the cameras.
Director Yuval Abraham Admits to Film Being One-Sided
One of the film’s director’s Yuval Abraham was recently interviewed by Israel’s Walla site.
In the interview, he basically admitted the film is deliberately one-sided.
Every documentary director finds his own way to cheat reality. How did you cheat her?
“I understand what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t call it ‘cheating.’ As a documentary director, you make a million choices. Basel and I had about ten thousand hours of raw material, and to take ten thousand hours and choose an hour and a half from it, that action…”
is necessarily manipulative.
Not manipulative, but necessarily partial. That’s how it is when you tell stories. The film takes the Israeli viewer for an hour and a half in the shoes of Bassel, a guy my age and yours, a Palestinian living in Masafar Yatta, and this is our opportunity to see reality for a moment from his perspective. Obviously, there are a million other perspectives on the same reality, but there is something in cinema that allows you to surrender to a certain perspective, and there is power in that. Sometimes it helps us see reality clearly”.
Film’s Title Was Taken From An Israeli Song
The film’s title in English is “No Other Land”, but in Hebrew it is אין ארץ אחרת (Ein Eretz Acheret). This is a clear reference to a popular 1986 Israeli song called אין לי ארץ אחרת (Ein Li Eretz Acheret) written by Ehud Manor as a late response to his younger brother being killed in the Suez Canal, during the War of Attrition in 1968, aged 19. The song was first performed by Gali Atari.
I have no other country
even if my land is aflame
Just a word in Hebrew
pierces my veins and my soul –
With a painful body, with a hungry heart,
Here is my home.I will not stay silent
because my country changed her face
I will not give up reminding her
And sing in her ears
until she will open her eyesI have no other country
even if my land is aflame
Just a word in Hebrew
pierces my veins and my soul –
With a painful body, with a hungry heart,
Here is my home.
I won’t be silent because my country
has changed her face.
I will not give up reminding her
And sing in her ears
until she will open her eyes
I have no other country
until she will renew her glorious days
Until she will open her eyes
I have no other country
even if my land is aflame
Just a word in Hebrew
pierces my veins and my soul –
With a painful body, with a hungry heart,
Here is my home.
With a painful body, with a hungry heart,
Here is my home.
Granted, the Left-wing Manor wrote it as a response to his displeasure with Israeli actions in Lebanon in 1982, and the song has become a protest song (which was even quoted by Nancy Pelosi in her plea to impeach Donald Trump). So it is no surprise the title would be co-opted this way. But it represents the idea that us Jews have no other homeland, even if certain things about Israel may pain us. This was not the intention behind it being used as the title of the film, which I can only assume is meant to turn the meaning on its head by suggesting that the palestinian Arabs have no other homeland.
Stealing titles, stealing narratives…
Yuval Abraham Knew Some of the Victims of October 7 Yet Didn’t Mention Them in His Speech
While Yuval Abraham did mention October 7 and the hostages briefly in his Oscars acceptance speech, what he didn’t mention were those brutally murdered by Hamas and regular Gazans.
What makes this even more indefensible is the fact he admittedly knew some of the victims, with one even being a fellow left-wing activist for Masafer Yatta.
Israelis from the peace camp said that they have been unable to muster empathy for the Palestinians since October 7. Wasn’t there a fraction of a moment when you lost it too?
“The crimes of October 7 also affected me personally: Nir Forti, who was with me in high school a few years above me and was murdered in Nova, Vivian Silver, who was a peace activist and was murdered in Kibbutz Be’eri, Haim Katzman, who was a left-wing activist in Masafer Yatta and was murdered in Kibbutz Hulit, all of them are acquaintances of mine and all of them were murdered on October 7.There is nothing that justifies a massacre of people dancing at a party, and I certainly understand the insane trauma, because it affects me too, but I didn’t feel a contradiction between empathy. I believe that the destinies of peoples are intertwined. It is no coincidence that the most right-wing government in the history of the country led us to the greatest security disaster in the history of the country….and we know today that in order to release the hostages, we need to stop the war and reach a political agreement so that we can have a life here. Everyone needs to be well in this country.”
Director Basel Adra’s Disturbing Tweets
A look at the X feed of Abraham’s palestinian Arab counterpart Basel Adra shows some troubling tweets that fly in the face of the image of someone genuinely seeking peace and coexistence.
Among the troubling tweets are those amplifying Hamas propaganda by the Hamas-affiliated Quds News Network
amplifying antisemitic terror supporter Mohammed El-Kurd
amplifying antisemitic Holocaust denier Jake Shields
amplifying a tweet mocking the idea that Hamas beheaded any babies
amplifying a tweet suggesting antisemitic chants are staged (posted by Bassem Youssef, who has been accused of antisemitism himself)
amplifying a justification for the ‘Amsterdam pogrom’ that occurred in November last year
and amplifying a tweet calling Israel “a nation overwhelmed with genocidal mania”
I did not see even one tweet of his condemning October 7 or calling for the release of the hostages.
I would like to thank those behind the Gazawood X account for some of the ideas, which I expanded upon, in this post.
We urgently need your support to continue our impactful work. To donate, please click on the below:
