On 5th March, the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) issued a statement which many people found confusing. After acknowledging the extent to which Israel and her supporters have attacked the Oscar-winning documentary No Other Land, the statement said the following:
“PACBI has from the start reached the conclusion that this film indeed violates the BDS movement’s anti-normalization guidelines in several ways. The BDS movement has always fought against normalization as a powerful weapon employed by oppressors to whitewash their crimes, to colonize the minds of the oppressed, and to undermine global solidarity with the struggle to end oppression.”
PACBI argued that any joint Israeli-Palestinian initiative violates the anti-normalisation guidelines, unless it both “publicly recognize[s] the UN-affirmed inalienable rights of the Palestinian people (at the very least an end to the occupation, end to apartheid, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees)”, and constitutes “a form of co-resistance against the Israeli regime of occupation, settler-colonialism, and apartheid.”
PACBI said it “has no capacity to publish a statement on every instance of normalization.” This sentence comes over as slightly disingenuous when talking about a film which did not just win an Oscar, but had already won a major award at the Berlinale, courting much controversy in the process.
No Other Land’s directors issued a statement in response saying that the film is “not only proof of Israeli settler-colonial war crimes taking place in the present, but also a proposal for the future, a search for a path towards justice and equality and an end to Apartheid.”
Palestinian feminist and activist Samah Salaine, called the PACBI statement “hesitant, convoluted, and unclear.” She continued: “The minutia of the statement’s chain of reasoning—that some of the filmmakers didn’t use the word ‘genocide’…is neither convincing nor relevant.”
FAQ Sheet
As a response to the criticism, PACBI later issued a more nuanced FAQ sheet. The FAQ tries to answer 7 questions, summarised below.
1. Is PACBI calling for boycotting No Other Land, an Oscar-winning film about Palestinian resilience and popular resistance to Israel’s regime of occupation and ethnic cleansing at a time when we need such films to raise public awareness the most?
PACBI makes clear that they didn’t call for a “boycott” but argues that the millions who have live streamed the genocide in Gaza should not need to see another documentary to convince them of Israel’s settler colonialism. Furthermore, “raising awareness about Palestine, particularly in the Arab world and the Global South, should not be tainted with normalization.” However, a boycott in “mainstream circles” could be counterproductive.
2. How does PACBI deal with ethical vs political considerations? And did PACBI only consider the ethical perspective and guidelines when taking a position on No Other Land, ignoring the film’s benefits vs. harms in this critical moment?
A boycott, according to the organisation, should be based not on a film’s content but whether it violates BDS anti-normalization guidelines. PACBI only published their criticism after the Oscars, particularly after director Yuval Abraham’s speech, which “parrot[ed] Zionist talking points on Gaza.”
3. Is fighting normalization more important than winning over allies, specifically in the West, the main partner in Israel’s regime of settler-colonialism, occupation, apartheid and genocide?
In the “current Trumpian moment”, PACBI acknowledges the role of the Global North in enforcing apartheid and settler colonialism. But the movement is wider than just the West.
4. Given assaults on advocacy for Palestinian rights and many forms of progressive speech, led by Trump, doesn’t calling out the film’s normalization weaken BDS’s ability to build intersectional coalitions to fight fascism, colonialism and oppression?
PACBI appreciates this criticism, and notes BDS’s call for broad intersectional coalitions. At the same time they call for “constructive and honest engagement”. This FAQ is intended as part of this process.
5. Shouldn’t we appreciate the contribution of brave Jewish-Israelis to exposing Israel’s ruthless military occupation and ethnic cleansing, as manifested in Masafer Yatta, even if they do not recognize the comprehensive, UN-stipulated Palestinian rights?
The original 2005 BDS statement calls for unity with “anti-Zionist Israelis who recognize the comprehensive rights of the Palestinian people…who wish to co-resist with us to end Israel’s system of colonial oppression.” But much of Israel’s “Zionist left” still whitewashes Israeli settler-colonialism and ignores the 1948 Nakba.
6. Who develops the BDS guidelines, and shouldn’t they be updated and modified to reflect the evolving reality? Why should they be the reference for assessing the relative benefit of any act of solidarity with the Palestinian struggle?
The Palestinian National Council (PNC), who developed the guidelines, is “the absolute largest, most inclusive Palestinian coalition … Representatives of almost all political parties, grassroots networks and activist groups participated”.
7. Is PACBI through this statement changing its principle of targeting institutions as opposed to individuals?
No. BDS and PACBI target institutions, not individuals. They do not call for or condone boycotts of individuals because of their Israeli or Jewish origin or identity.” The BDS Anti-Normalization guidelines state: “when an Arab individual and an Israeli individual collaborate or participate in joint events or projects, they do so as ‘representatives’ of their states rather than as private individuals.” This results in an inherent power imbalance between Israelis and Arabs who work together.
Making sense of the FAQ
There is much to agree with in the PACBI statements, not least that the success of No Other Land owes much to co-director Yuval Abraham’s role as an “alibi Jew”. A purely Palestinian film would probably not have won the same acclaim or awards. At the same time, it is not the filmmakers who are responsible for this outrageous discrimination.
Very few of the FAQs directly address No Other Land and its makers. Assumptions are left hanging in the air. The most clear references to the film are in the suggestions that Abraham is either a Zionist or not anti-Zionist enough, and that his speech at the Oscars parroted Zionist talking points.
Yuval’s speech is flawed. He pays too much attention to the Israeli hostages and the “brutal crime” of October 7th. He calls for a “different path without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people,” a phrase which is perhaps deliberately ambiguous.
I wouldn’t have used exactly the same wording. But it is not true that the speech ignores apartheid. It explicitly states, “we live in a régime where I am free under civilian law, and Basel is under military laws that destroy his life and he cannot control,” and calls out US foreign policy for enforcing these divisions.
In showing indignation at Yuval’s speech, PACBI risks looking like a mirror image of the risible former culture secretary, Claudia Roth. After being filmed applauding the filmmakers at the Berlinale, Roth claimed she was applauding the Israeli filmmaker Yuval but not the Palestinian Basel Adra. We do our side no favours if we applaud Basel but not Yuval.
PACBI is a serious and venerable organisation, which we should treat as such. Nonetheless, I feel that this time they have made a mistake.
The strategic response
The question, “does an artist contravene the BDS guidelines?” is closely tied to a second question: “would a call to boycott this artist strengthen or weaken the campaign for Palestinian liberation?” PACBI is very aware of the need to distinguish between tactical decisions and points of principle.
But it is unclear to me what PACBI is asking us to do. If they are not calling for a boycott, what are they calling for? The statements contain unnecessary ambiguity. A clearly argued pronouncement based on water tight evidence would not persuade everybody, but at least it would provide a basis for a discussion based on facts not insinuations. I don’t believe that the vague mish-mash provided by PACBI provides this.
No Other Land, and its critical success, have inspired many activists who already know about the oppression of Palestinians. It has had an impact in both the Global North and South. This is why Israel, and its supporters throughout the world, have done so much to try to suppress the film.
One of the great strengths of BDS has always been that, however much its detractors have argued otherwise, the campaign was always clear that boycotts are organised against institutions, not individuals. As PACBI’s own Guidelines for the International Cultural Boycott of Israel say:
“Mere affiliation of Israeli cultural workers to an Israeli cultural institution is therefore not grounds for applying the boycott. If, however, an individual is representing the state of Israel or a complicit Israeli institution, or is commissioned/recruited to participate in Israel’s efforts to “rebrand” itself, then her/his activities are subject to the institutional boycott.”
According to the evidence provided, I don’t see No Other Land fulfilling these criteria. There is a vague mention of the film’s funding, some of which, Samah Salaime reports, “came from an organization that, in an earlier iteration many years ago, received funding from the Israeli government”. There may be more damning evidence elsewhere, but if so it has yet to be produced.
The other main argument for boycott is that Yuval Abraham “is a Zionist really.” This may well be true, as evidenced in his Oscars speech. But there is a world of difference between Abraham, who consistently criticises apartheid and occupation, and, say, Gal Gadot, another target of boycott, who is a genocide apologist who enthusiastically trained the Israeli military.
Should we boycott all films made by Zionists? In which case, we should not watch anything written by Aaron Sorkin (not necessarily a bad idea) or films starring Natalie Portman or Robert de Niro. If people think this is a good idea, let’s talk about it, but I don’t see this as the basis for a broad and effective movement.
The lynching of Basel Adra
I’ve been meaning to write this article for weeks, and had decided that its time had passed. Then, as Yuval tweeted: “A group of settlers just lynched Hamdan Ballal, co director of our film no other land. They beat him and he has injuries in his head and stomach, bleeding. Soldiers invaded the ambulance he called, and took him. No sign of him since.”
After he was released, Hamdan told the press: “They threw me to the ground, and the settler started hitting me on the head. Then a soldier also began beating me…It was a revenge for our move. I heard the voices of the soldiers…I heard [the word] ‘Oscar’.”
The media reaction to Hamdan’s lynching stands in clear contrast to the way in which they ignore many similar attacks by settlers. The story here was not that a(nother) Palestinian was nearly killed but that this had happened to the famous filmmakers.
You could argue—as some people have—that this media coverage is a result of “privilege” that Hamdan now receives after his Oscar win. This is partly true, just as Yuval receives more coverage because he is an Israeli Jew. But it should not mean that we should disassociate ourselves from the public outrage which followed the attack.
No Other Land has provided a focal point for mass indignation against open political and media bias against the treatment of Palestinians by Israel and our own governments. This indignation might not go far enough, and we should build on it, raising awkward questions about how even progressives sometimes normalise Israel’s atrocities. But such criticisms are more effective if we are part of this anger and activity.
The important point is that the Israeli government, its Western backers, and a compliant media are responsible for the atrocities. The makers of No Other Land have made mistakes, and should not be immune to all criticism. But you should still go to see the film, make sure your friends see it, and campaign against distributors preventing us from seeing it. No Other Land makes our movement stronger. We should welcome its existence.
