Excellent article, Ember. I haven't seen the film, and the reason is at least partially that I felt it would be as you've detailed. As you know, this isn't new. Way back, I remember having the same reaction to The Gatekeepers & Waltz With Bashir that you've had to No Other Land. Best of luck to you and keep writing...
Thank you for your critique here, there's a lot I didn't think about and certainly a lot I didn't know about things Yuval said - especially spreading the rape propaganda, that's incredibly disappointing and frustrating.
However, if I may, I will say this - I did enjoy the movie. As a Palestinian, it felt great to be able to see some representation at the movie theater. But much more importantly - being able to bring a lot of friends and acquaintances (many of whom just know SO little about the topic) and have them see some of what is happening - and I know it opened their eyes and expanded their brains a little more on the subject. Then after the movie, people I know locally from protesting and whatnot had a table outside the theater with lots of literature and invitations to events and people were picking it up, asking questions, and it led to us having conversations about it. For me, that alone was worth it.
I also just wanted to point out that while they didn't talk about Gaza (until the end at the credits), they also didn't talk about the rest of the West Bank. I think it was meant to be a very contained story about the Massafer Yatta community specifically. I don't think it was necessarily aiming to be an all encompassing documentary that covered all of the Occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people since the Nakba. Rather, I think the aim was to provide a very personal story of Basel and his experience as a Palestinian in this one, small community. Sort of a reverse "you can't see the forest for the trees" so that instead of talking about the Occupation in general, wide sweeping ways - maybe there's benefit in sharing a very unique, personal story like this so that hopefully an audience gets to know and empathize with these "characters" more.
And while I also hate anytime there's a need to include an Israeli to have some sort of both sides perspective, I think if it allowed more people to see and more people to be open to the critique they're watching if there's someone from "the other side" there as well in support of it, then that's probably a good thing. Plus, I worry we're taking agency away from the two Palestinian creators of this film. They made this and it's what their vision was. He's said in interviews that Yuval is his friend, and I'm not sure we can achieve liberation if there isn't SOME help from inside the Zionist colony. I think that's needed. It just obviously needs to be more than...what? 2 percent? 3 percent?
Also, lastly - hope I'm not coming across overly critical. We're very much on the same side here and I agree with everything you've written, just wanted to provide my perspective as well and how there is some benefit. I mean....seeing all the Zionists freak the eff out afterwards is pretty great also. :)
I appreciate your response and the thought you’ve put into engaging with my critique. I completely understand the value of representation and the power of bringing people into conversations they might otherwise ignore. Visibility can be a tool for education and mobilization—but only if it does not reinforce the structures that maintain Palestinian erasure.
The issue is not that No Other Land didn’t focus on Gaza—I never expected it to. The issue is that this film was released in the midst of an active genocide against Gaza, at a time when the occupation’s violence is at its most explicit, and yet it still deliberately maintained the colonial fiction that the West Bank exists in isolation. This isn’t just a narrative choice—it’s an extension of a much larger propaganda machine that works to fracture Palestinian unity, both geographically and politically, in order to make genocide more palatable.
Masafer Yatta, like many other Palestinian communities, has endured horrific settler violence, displacement, and ethnic cleansing. But by framing the story only around this, without contextualizing it within the totality of Zionist expansion and genocide, the film inadvertently upholds the settler-state’s preferred framing: one where Palestinians are seen as scattered, disconnected victims of localized oppression rather than an indigenous people resisting a unified settler-colonial project.
This is how the West accepts genocide—it does not deny Palestinian suffering, it just compartmentalizes it, managing it into narratives that evoke sympathy but never demand action. No Other Land participates in this management by presenting a fragment of Palestinian oppression, sanitizing its full scale, and ensuring that Western audiences can feel bad about “unfairness” without ever being confronted with the urgent need for decolonization.
As for including an Israeli voice—this is precisely the problem. Palestinian liberation should not require a settler-state participant to be considered legitimate. The fact that an Israeli presence was necessary for this film’s success is not proof that this strategy works—it’s proof of how deeply colonial approval dictates which Palestinian stories are seen.
This framing also plays into a deeply dehumanizing binary: Gaza Palestinians as “bad victims” and West Bank Palestinians as more acceptable. This is an intentional Zionist framework—one that portrays Gaza as inherently violent, extremist, and deserving of annihilation, while West Bank Palestinians are positioned as the “good ones,” the ones who protest peacefully, who don’t resist “too much,” who are worthy of limited sympathy. (And with the actions in Jenin Camp currently, that pseudo sympathetic narrative is shrinking.)
The film, whether intentionally or not, reinforces this binary by erasing Gaza at the precise moment when genocide against it is at its most explicit. This omission does not just reflect reality—it constructs a reality in which Gaza is disposable, where its erasure is normalized, and where its annihilation is justified through silence.
This isn’t about taking agency away from the Palestinian directors—it’s about recognizing how systems of power shape whose voices are amplified, how genocide is framed, and what narratives are deemed acceptable for global audiences. If a film erases Gaza at a time when Gaza is actively being annihilated, we have to ask: who benefits from this omission?
I also want to highlight that ethnic cleansing does not exist outside of genocide. It is not a separate phenomenon, nor is it a legally defined crime under international law—because it has always functioned as a euphemism for genocide. The term itself was popularized to avoid the legal and moral weight of calling genocidal violence what it is. Every stage of Zionist violence against Palestinians since the 1880s falls within the classification of genocide, from the initial settler encroachments to the systematic elimination of Palestinian life, land, and culture today.
My critique is not of the Palestinians who participated in this film, nor of their voices and their story. Palestinian experiences—no matter how they are told—are valid and necessary. But as a genocide scholar, my focus is on how genocide is structured, legitimized, and framed in global narratives. My critique is of the broader system that determines which Palestinian stories are seen, which are erased, and what function those visible stories serve within the settler-colonial project.
This isn’t just about one film—it’s about how genocide is managed and marketed to the world. No Other Land fits into a long history of controlled Palestinian visibility, where suffering is acknowledged but always within limits that prevent it from threatening the Zionist state. That’s the problem.
Didn’t the comment explain that by taking friends to see this film, a larger door for decolonization has been opened? I share almost all of the criticisms you’ve made, but I feel the obligation to uplift Palestinian voices from every possible angle and avenue into people’s minds to stop this genocide, even using what is hasbara, is crucial. We can’t wait for propaganda-free media. That this won the Oscar (a whole issue of its own) but cannot be streamed in the US, because they don’t want Americans seeing this film, is very telling.
I absolutely understand the desire to uplift Palestinian voices and recognize the potential of using every avenue, even those influenced by hasbara, to engage with a broader audience. It’s important to get the truth in front of as many people as possible, especially when it comes to stopping genocide. However, the issue isn’t about whether Palestinian voices should be heard—they absolutely must be. The concern is about how these voices are framed and whether they are filtered through a lens that supports the settler-colonial project.
Using films or platforms that are part of the propaganda system risks reinforcing the narrative that the occupation can be normalized or that Israeli perspectives need to be central for the narrative to be heard. Even with the best intentions, this inadvertently legitimizes the very forces we’re trying to dismantle.
That being said, I agree with you that the fact this film is being suppressed in the US says a lot about the control over Palestinian representation. It’s frustrating, but it also highlights the urgent need for more truly decolonial, Palestinian-led narratives that don’t need to rely on settler approval to be valid.
Very good critique, the most powerful piece about the stark compartmentalization of the West Bank from Gaza, managing the genocide and resistance to it.
Like Hollywood would ever let a true representative film, win any award. Hollywood is a Zionist project! They are some of the biggest funders of this genocide. Fuck Hollywood.
Thanks for this. I read a couple of articles praising the film and the creators and your view of it did not occur to me. However, you make a very good case, a real lesson in the deliberateness of settler colonialism.
Great article, thank you. This morning I have been trying to share the speech that Basel Adra gave at the Oscars. It seems the AI on FB doesnt allow it. I have tried many ways. As you say, genocide is also the erasure, the silencing about what is REALLY happening, its the distortion of the narrative. In Germany and France for example the narrative in the media is completely onesided, I would even say censored. In Spain a little better. I live and travel between these 3 countries. Only Thanxx to dropsite news, zeteo, Aljazheera, Guardian, Substack and many investigative journalists it is possible to access better information.
Excellent article, Ember. I haven't seen the film, and the reason is at least partially that I felt it would be as you've detailed. As you know, this isn't new. Way back, I remember having the same reaction to The Gatekeepers & Waltz With Bashir that you've had to No Other Land. Best of luck to you and keep writing...
So they're not anti-zionist, arguing for the one state solution?
Sorry double comment.
https://www.threads.net/@mohamedhadid/post/DGyhJl1SloD?xmt=AQGzomuUHrntTCPTDFWzH5TKox4fvJWkvsIoeu0UlCk7eA
Thank you for your critique here, there's a lot I didn't think about and certainly a lot I didn't know about things Yuval said - especially spreading the rape propaganda, that's incredibly disappointing and frustrating.
However, if I may, I will say this - I did enjoy the movie. As a Palestinian, it felt great to be able to see some representation at the movie theater. But much more importantly - being able to bring a lot of friends and acquaintances (many of whom just know SO little about the topic) and have them see some of what is happening - and I know it opened their eyes and expanded their brains a little more on the subject. Then after the movie, people I know locally from protesting and whatnot had a table outside the theater with lots of literature and invitations to events and people were picking it up, asking questions, and it led to us having conversations about it. For me, that alone was worth it.
I also just wanted to point out that while they didn't talk about Gaza (until the end at the credits), they also didn't talk about the rest of the West Bank. I think it was meant to be a very contained story about the Massafer Yatta community specifically. I don't think it was necessarily aiming to be an all encompassing documentary that covered all of the Occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people since the Nakba. Rather, I think the aim was to provide a very personal story of Basel and his experience as a Palestinian in this one, small community. Sort of a reverse "you can't see the forest for the trees" so that instead of talking about the Occupation in general, wide sweeping ways - maybe there's benefit in sharing a very unique, personal story like this so that hopefully an audience gets to know and empathize with these "characters" more.
And while I also hate anytime there's a need to include an Israeli to have some sort of both sides perspective, I think if it allowed more people to see and more people to be open to the critique they're watching if there's someone from "the other side" there as well in support of it, then that's probably a good thing. Plus, I worry we're taking agency away from the two Palestinian creators of this film. They made this and it's what their vision was. He's said in interviews that Yuval is his friend, and I'm not sure we can achieve liberation if there isn't SOME help from inside the Zionist colony. I think that's needed. It just obviously needs to be more than...what? 2 percent? 3 percent?
Also, lastly - hope I'm not coming across overly critical. We're very much on the same side here and I agree with everything you've written, just wanted to provide my perspective as well and how there is some benefit. I mean....seeing all the Zionists freak the eff out afterwards is pretty great also. :)
I appreciate your response and the thought you’ve put into engaging with my critique. I completely understand the value of representation and the power of bringing people into conversations they might otherwise ignore. Visibility can be a tool for education and mobilization—but only if it does not reinforce the structures that maintain Palestinian erasure.
The issue is not that No Other Land didn’t focus on Gaza—I never expected it to. The issue is that this film was released in the midst of an active genocide against Gaza, at a time when the occupation’s violence is at its most explicit, and yet it still deliberately maintained the colonial fiction that the West Bank exists in isolation. This isn’t just a narrative choice—it’s an extension of a much larger propaganda machine that works to fracture Palestinian unity, both geographically and politically, in order to make genocide more palatable.
Masafer Yatta, like many other Palestinian communities, has endured horrific settler violence, displacement, and ethnic cleansing. But by framing the story only around this, without contextualizing it within the totality of Zionist expansion and genocide, the film inadvertently upholds the settler-state’s preferred framing: one where Palestinians are seen as scattered, disconnected victims of localized oppression rather than an indigenous people resisting a unified settler-colonial project.
This is how the West accepts genocide—it does not deny Palestinian suffering, it just compartmentalizes it, managing it into narratives that evoke sympathy but never demand action. No Other Land participates in this management by presenting a fragment of Palestinian oppression, sanitizing its full scale, and ensuring that Western audiences can feel bad about “unfairness” without ever being confronted with the urgent need for decolonization.
As for including an Israeli voice—this is precisely the problem. Palestinian liberation should not require a settler-state participant to be considered legitimate. The fact that an Israeli presence was necessary for this film’s success is not proof that this strategy works—it’s proof of how deeply colonial approval dictates which Palestinian stories are seen.
This framing also plays into a deeply dehumanizing binary: Gaza Palestinians as “bad victims” and West Bank Palestinians as more acceptable. This is an intentional Zionist framework—one that portrays Gaza as inherently violent, extremist, and deserving of annihilation, while West Bank Palestinians are positioned as the “good ones,” the ones who protest peacefully, who don’t resist “too much,” who are worthy of limited sympathy. (And with the actions in Jenin Camp currently, that pseudo sympathetic narrative is shrinking.)
The film, whether intentionally or not, reinforces this binary by erasing Gaza at the precise moment when genocide against it is at its most explicit. This omission does not just reflect reality—it constructs a reality in which Gaza is disposable, where its erasure is normalized, and where its annihilation is justified through silence.
This isn’t about taking agency away from the Palestinian directors—it’s about recognizing how systems of power shape whose voices are amplified, how genocide is framed, and what narratives are deemed acceptable for global audiences. If a film erases Gaza at a time when Gaza is actively being annihilated, we have to ask: who benefits from this omission?
Because it’s never accidental.
I also want to highlight that ethnic cleansing does not exist outside of genocide. It is not a separate phenomenon, nor is it a legally defined crime under international law—because it has always functioned as a euphemism for genocide. The term itself was popularized to avoid the legal and moral weight of calling genocidal violence what it is. Every stage of Zionist violence against Palestinians since the 1880s falls within the classification of genocide, from the initial settler encroachments to the systematic elimination of Palestinian life, land, and culture today.
My critique is not of the Palestinians who participated in this film, nor of their voices and their story. Palestinian experiences—no matter how they are told—are valid and necessary. But as a genocide scholar, my focus is on how genocide is structured, legitimized, and framed in global narratives. My critique is of the broader system that determines which Palestinian stories are seen, which are erased, and what function those visible stories serve within the settler-colonial project.
This isn’t just about one film—it’s about how genocide is managed and marketed to the world. No Other Land fits into a long history of controlled Palestinian visibility, where suffering is acknowledged but always within limits that prevent it from threatening the Zionist state. That’s the problem.
Didn’t the comment explain that by taking friends to see this film, a larger door for decolonization has been opened? I share almost all of the criticisms you’ve made, but I feel the obligation to uplift Palestinian voices from every possible angle and avenue into people’s minds to stop this genocide, even using what is hasbara, is crucial. We can’t wait for propaganda-free media. That this won the Oscar (a whole issue of its own) but cannot be streamed in the US, because they don’t want Americans seeing this film, is very telling.
I absolutely understand the desire to uplift Palestinian voices and recognize the potential of using every avenue, even those influenced by hasbara, to engage with a broader audience. It’s important to get the truth in front of as many people as possible, especially when it comes to stopping genocide. However, the issue isn’t about whether Palestinian voices should be heard—they absolutely must be. The concern is about how these voices are framed and whether they are filtered through a lens that supports the settler-colonial project.
Using films or platforms that are part of the propaganda system risks reinforcing the narrative that the occupation can be normalized or that Israeli perspectives need to be central for the narrative to be heard. Even with the best intentions, this inadvertently legitimizes the very forces we’re trying to dismantle.
That being said, I agree with you that the fact this film is being suppressed in the US says a lot about the control over Palestinian representation. It’s frustrating, but it also highlights the urgent need for more truly decolonial, Palestinian-led narratives that don’t need to rely on settler approval to be valid.
Here are great threads on X about this:
https://x.com/shepherds4good/status/1896609498309263705
https://x.com/shepherds4good/status/1897668042600907217
I’ll check those out, thank you.
BDS has great information on anti-normalization that impacts things like this film; https://bdsmovement.net/faqs
THANK YOU
Very good critique, the most powerful piece about the stark compartmentalization of the West Bank from Gaza, managing the genocide and resistance to it.
Like Hollywood would ever let a true representative film, win any award. Hollywood is a Zionist project! They are some of the biggest funders of this genocide. Fuck Hollywood.
Thanks for this. I read a couple of articles praising the film and the creators and your view of it did not occur to me. However, you make a very good case, a real lesson in the deliberateness of settler colonialism.
Great article, thank you. This morning I have been trying to share the speech that Basel Adra gave at the Oscars. It seems the AI on FB doesnt allow it. I have tried many ways. As you say, genocide is also the erasure, the silencing about what is REALLY happening, its the distortion of the narrative. In Germany and France for example the narrative in the media is completely onesided, I would even say censored. In Spain a little better. I live and travel between these 3 countries. Only Thanxx to dropsite news, zeteo, Aljazheera, Guardian, Substack and many investigative journalists it is possible to access better information.
Electronic Intifada is awesome
Yes they are! When the journalists are being arrested, it means they are doing something correct. They are scaring the criminal elite.
I also like Geopolitical Economy Report, with Ben Norton.
Democracy Now is a good source for daily news.
A powerful critique.