The Oscar-Winning Propaganda of No Other Land

How Genocide is Managed, Marketed, and Sanitized

The Celebration of a Sanitized Narrative

The Oscar win for No Other Land has been hailed as a historic moment for Palestinian representation in cinema. But beneath the surface of this celebration lies a deeply frustrating reality: Palestinian stories are only recognized when they fit a settler-approved narrative—one that erases Gaza, centers Israeli voices, and reinforces the colonial fantasy of a “two-state solution.”

May Turfah’s fantastic critique (linked here) unpacks the power dynamics at play, questioning whose humanity is being centered and why. The fact that an Israeli co-director was necessary for the film’s success underscores a disturbing truth: Palestinian stories are still expected to seek validation from the very colonial structure responsible for their oppression.

The problem is not that No Other Land depicts suffering in the West Bank—it’s that it does so in a way that reinforces the ideological goals of Zionist settler-colonialism. By erasing Gaza, pacifying Palestinian resistance, and making an Israeli journalist a central figure, the film transforms active genocide into a manageable spectacle for Western audiences.

This is not a neutral omission. It is an extension of the genocide itself.

The Erasure of Gaza: A Feature, Not a Bug

Genocide is not just about mass killing—it is about erasure. It is about who is made visible and who is disappeared from the narrative. No Other Land deliberately omits Gaza, presenting the West Bank as an isolated struggle rather than part of a singular, occupied Palestine. This omission serves a critical function:

• It reinforces the colonial fiction of a “two-state solution.” By compartmentalizing Palestinian suffering, the film legitimizes the illusion that the West Bank is a separate entity rather than part of a unified nation under occupation. This illusion is key to justifying continued Israeli expansion and delaying any meaningful decolonization.

• It sanitizes the full scale of Zionist violence. Gaza is where genocide is at its most explicit—where over 40,000 people have been slaughtered, famine is being weaponized, and an entire population is being systematically erased. Keeping Gaza out of the frame allows audiences to engage with a more “digestible” version of Palestinian suffering, one that does not demand urgent, uncompromising action against Zionism.

• It provides cover for ongoing atrocities. If Gaza is absent from the story, then its destruction becomes easier to ignore. The systematic obliteration of hospitals, the starvation of children, the annihilation of entire families—all of this is made invisible, allowing genocide to continue with minimal Western pushback.

This is not accidental. This is how settler-colonial propaganda functions.

The “Both Sides” Poison Pill: How Liberal Zionism Hijacks Palestinian Narratives

Yuval Abraham’s Oscars speech encapsulated the insidious nature of liberal Zionist propaganda. His rhetoric followed a predictable formula:

• Blurring the lines between occupied and occupier. By speaking about “Israelis and Palestinians” in vague, equalizing terms, he erased the fundamental reality that Israel is the colonizer, and Palestinians are the colonized.

• Centering Israeli loss within a moment meant to highlight Palestinian genocide. This is a well-worn tactic—ensuring that any discussion of Palestinian suffering is immediately counterbalanced by the suggestion that “both sides” are experiencing harm.

• Diluting Zionist accountability. The “both sides suffer” narrative is designed to soften the image of Zionist violence, reducing genocide to a tragic but inevitable conflict rather than a deliberate project of elimination.

This is the same insidious framework that positions Zionism as merely a “flawed state” in need of reform rather than a genocidal settler-colonial project that must be dismantled.

But Abraham’s speech is not an isolated incident. His track record shows a clear commitment to advancing Zionist propaganda under the guise of progressive critique:

• He spread the widely debunked Israeli atrocity propaganda about Hamas committing mass rapes—a lie used to justify genocide in Gaza.

• He called for the extermination of Hamas, which Zionists have openly tied to the complete destruction of Palestinian resistance.

• He falsely blamed Hamas for the lack of peace, ignoring Israel’s decades of rejecting ceasefires and peace deals while parroting Islamophobic rhetoric about “Islamist supremacists.”

• He works for +972 Magazine, a liberal Zionist outlet that pretends to be critical while ultimately reinforcing the legitimacy of the Zionist state.

This is why No Other Land won an Oscar. Not because it is a radical indictment of Zionism, but because it fits neatly into the framework of controlled visibility—a framework that ensures Palestinians are only seen when their suffering can be managed, commodified, and sanitized.

Genocide Voyeurism Propaganda: The Engine of Controlled Palestinian Visibility

The erasure of Gaza in No Other Land fits into a larger phenomenon I’ve been developing: Genocide Voyeurism Propaganda. This is the deliberate structuring of narratives to manage how genocide is perceived—allowing just enough visibility to create sympathy, but never enough to demand systemic change.

How No Other Land Exhibits Genocide Voyeurism Propaganda

• Selective Visibility: The film highlights occupation violence, but only within the West Bank. Gaza—where genocide is at its most blatant—is erased, allowing the West to maintain its illusions about Israeli democracy.

• Settler Redemption Arc: The Israeli journalist protagonist ensures that settler-state participation is central to the narrative’s legitimacy. Palestinian voices remain secondary, filtered through the framework of the “good Israeli.”

• Neutralizing Resistance: Palestinian resistance is depicted as documentation—activists “armed” with cameras rather than actual armed struggle. This fits neatly into the Western preference for nonviolent, pacified resistance rather than the reality of Palestinian liberation movements.

• Emotional Spectacle Without Structural Challenge: The film presents suffering in ways that evoke sympathy but avoid indicting the genocidal structure of Zionism itself. Audiences are encouraged to feel, but not to act.

This is how genocide is normalized. It is not just about killing—it is about controlling the visibility of that killing, shaping the narrative to ensure that the system of violence remains intact.

The Broader Implications: What This “Win” Really Means

The fact that No Other Land won an Oscar is not a victory for Palestinian liberation. It is a victory for managed genocide visibility. It is a victory for the colonial gatekeepers who dictate which Palestinian stories get told and which are buried.

If the West actually cared about Palestinian freedom, it wouldn’t take a film that erases Gaza, includes an Israeli co-director, and treads carefully along the boundaries of acceptability to get recognition. A fully Palestinian-led narrative that unapologetically indicts Zionism would never be allowed on this stage.

We must stop mistaking representation within a colonial framework for progress. True Palestinian liberation will never come through settler-approved storytelling.

The Fight for Unfiltered Palestinian Narratives

No Other Land is not a neutral film. It is a carefully curated artifact of genocide voyeurism—a story designed to be seen, but only in ways that do not disrupt the ongoing colonial project. Its erasure of Gaza, its emphasis on nonviolent resistance, and its centering of an Israeli journalist are not innocent creative choices. They are structural necessities for any Palestinian story to be platformed within the Zionist-aligned Western narrative.

But they do not need settler validation to tell their stories. they do not need to fit within the boundaries of acceptability dictated by colonial overseers.

Genocide is not unfair. It is not problematic. It is not complicated. It is deliberate, systematic, and calculated. And the narratives that emerge from it are just as intentional.

The real fight is not just for their recognition—it is for control over their own narratives. It is for the right to be seen as they are, without dilution, without erasure, without settler approval.

And that is a fight that cannot be won through Oscars. It must be won through decolonization.