![A mother’s taweez and the Cape’s interfaith traditions [+ video]](https://muslimviews.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Michael-Weeder-Book-Launch-9May26-360x180.webp)
On March 2, 2025, at the 97th Academy Awards in Hollywood, the documentary No Other Land won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. MAHMOOD SANGLAY argues why this was a coup for liberal Zionism.
Directed by Palestinian activist Basel Adra and Israeli journalist Yuval Abraham, the film provides a harrowing account of the Israeli occupation and the systematic displacement of Palestinian communities in Masafer Yatta, a region in the West Bank under constant threat from Israeli military and settler incursions. The film’s victory at the Oscars was widely viewed as a political statement, igniting passionate debates across the entertainment industry, political spheres and activist circles. While the documentary’s recognition amplified Palestinian struggles to a global audience, it also exposed the contradictions within liberal Zionism, a movement that purports to support human rights and democracy but remains complicit in the ongoing dispossession of Palestinians.
The award triggered sharply polarised reactions. Within Israeli political circles, the backlash was swift. Israel’s Minister of Culture and Sports, Miki Zohar, condemned the film as ‘propaganda that distorts reality and delegitimises Israel,’ urging cultural institutions to boycott screenings. The Israeli far-right was predictably incensed, perceiving the Oscar win as an endorsement of anti-Zionist narratives that challenge Israel’s territorial expansionism and the state’s foundational myths. Israeli media outlets aligned with the government framed the documentary as a betrayal, accusing the filmmakers of ‘providing ammunition to Israel’s enemies.’
Conversely, Palestinian communities welcomed the Oscar win as a long-overdue acknowledgment of their suffering and resilience. Activists saw it as an opportunity to elevate global awareness of the apartheid conditions under which Palestinians live. Palestinian filmmaker Elia Suleiman remarked that No Other Land ‘shatters the illusion that art can be neatly separated from politics.’
The film’s success was met with widespread celebration in the occupied territories, with many hoping that such international recognition might translate into greater scrutiny of Israel’s actions.
The response within Hollywood was more ambivalent. While progressive figures in the entertainment industry praised the film, major studios and influential Jewish organiations were noticeably restrained in their reactions. Hollywood, historically cautious in its treatment of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, has often been reluctant to support Palestinian narratives, fearing backlash from pro-Israel lobbying groups. Nevertheless, No Other Land’s victory represents a significant shift, indicating that at least some segments of the industry are willing to engage with politically charged content that challenges dominant narratives.
Contradictions of liberal Zionism
Beyond the immediate reactions, No Other Land itself serves as a striking exposé of the contradictions and fallacies inherent in liberal Zionism. The film captures in real-time how the Israeli legal and military systems operate under a framework that claims to uphold democracy and the rule of law, yet systematically facilitates ethnic cleansing and land theft. Liberal Zionists, who profess opposition to illegal settlements and advocate for a two-state solution, find themselves in a moral and ideological bind when confronted with the stark realities depicted in the documentary.
The documentary highlights the everyday struggles of Palestinian residents facing forced eviction under Israeli court orders. The legal proceedings are framed in bureaucratic language that purports to follow democratic principles and due process, yet the outcome is predetermined: Palestinian communities are displaced while Jewish settlements expand. This contradiction underscores how liberal Zionism upholds the illusion of democracy while participating in the systematic oppression of Palestinians.
Throughout the film, Israeli activists express dismay at the state’s actions, yet their appeals remain confined to an Israeli audience. This reflects the selective application of democratic values. While liberal Zionists advocate for fairness and human rights, their vision rarely extends to full Palestinian equality within a single, non-segregated political entity.
No Other Land documents the ongoing expansion of settlements, which are illegal under international law but continue to receive tacit support from liberal Zionists who see them as an unfortunate yet unavoidable reality. While liberal Zionist politicians and commentators may criticise settler violence, they stop short of acknowledging the broader Zionist project that enabled it. The film’s footage of demolished Palestinian homes and displaced families is a record of individual injustices and it exposes the systemic mechanisms that allow these violations to persist under the guise of maintaining ‘Israeli security.’
A recurring motif in the documentary is the contrast between moments of performative outrage by liberal Zionists and their ultimate acquiescence to Israeli policies. Israeli human rights activists lament the demolitions and brutality against Palestinians, yet their engagement remains within the confines of Israeli legal and political discourse. As the film progresses, it becomes clear that even the most well-intentioned liberal Zionists fail to challenge the apartheid structure itself, instead choosing to address only its most egregious manifestations.
This mirrors the broader moral inconsistency of liberal Zionism: it condemns settler violence but does not challenge the occupation that enables it. It criticises far-right extremism but refuses to recognise the structural apartheid that permeates Israeli governance.
One of the film’s most powerful scenes juxtaposes Israeli court rulings on Palestinian land cases with maps illustrating the relentless encroachment of settlements. This visual storytelling dismantles the liberal Zionist argument that a two-state solution remains viable. The constant expansion of Israeli-controlled zones renders any potential Palestinian state a fragmented, non-contiguous entity. The Palestinian territories are more akin to erstwhile South African Bantustans than a sovereign nation.
Liberal Zionists often cling to the two-state rhetoric as a means of preserving Israel’s Jewish demographic majority while deflecting accusations of apartheid. Yet, as No Other Land makes clear, every demolished Palestinian home and newly built settlement brings the prospect of a genuine two-state solution further out of reach. The film’s depiction of this irreversible fragmentation serves as an indictment of the liberal Zionist refusal to confront the realities of land dispossession.
Throughout the documentary, Palestinian voices remain central, offering firsthand testimonies of their experiences with occupation and displacement. However, what is equally telling is how these voices are often disregarded in broader Israeli and Western media narratives. Liberal Zionist discourse frequently frames the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a clash of competing nationalisms, reducing Palestinian resistance to mere grievances rather than a legitimate struggle for liberation.
The film’s success in centering Palestinian perspectives exposes this erasure. It challenges the viewer to recognise that Palestinians are not passive victims in a tragic conflict but active agents in a struggle against a colonial regime. Liberal Zionists, who often seek to portray themselves as mediators or peacemakers, are uncomfortable with this framing because it undermines their self-perception as benevolent figures in a conflict that demands clear accountability.
You may also want to read
The Oscar win for No Other Land forces a confrontation with the uncomfortable truths of Israeli occupation and apartheid. While the Israeli far-right predictably denounced the film, the more revealing response came from liberal Zionist circles, where praise for the documentary was often coupled with attempts to distance its message from broader critiques of Zionism itself. This hesitation reflects the deep contradictions of a movement that seeks to balance human rights advocacy with the maintenance of Jewish supremacy in Israel-Palestine.
The film’s triumph is not merely symbolic. It signifies a shift in global discourse, where the cracks in liberal Zionist ideology are becoming harder to ignore. As Palestinian voices gain greater international recognition, the myths that have long sustained liberal Zionism will continue to unravel. The real question is whether those who claim to support justice will move beyond rhetorical condemnation and take a stand for genuine decolonisation and Palestinian self-determination.
