Liberal Zionism steals the show at the Oscars

Editor’s Note: The following Op-Ed, which addresses the author’s discomfort with No Other Land co-director Yuval Abraham’s acceptance speech at the Academy Awards, was written prior to the March 5 publication of the BDS movement statement calling for a boycott of the film on the grounds of normalization.

As soon as No Other Land was announced as the winner of the 2025 Academy Award for Documentary Feature Film, social media erupted with praise for the film, which was co-directed by two Palestinians, Basel Adra, Hamdan Ballal, and two Israelis, Yuval Abraham, and Rachel Szor. The film tells the story of Basel Adra, a young Palestinian activist resisting the displacement of his people in Masafer Yatta, and his friendship with Yuval Abraham, an Israeli journalist who came to help the villagers in their struggle. Adra and Abraham gave the acceptance speeches on behalf of the four co-directors, and much of the praise focused more on the speeches than on the contents of the very powerful film. Many commentators noted that this was the only political moment at the ceremony—a sad observation, considering the global platform the large group of influential stars had, at an explosive moment in world politics. 

However, an analysis of Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham’s speeches–especially the latter’s, which garnered more applause than Adra’s–reveals a win for liberal Zionist hasbara which sadly overshadows the documentary’s critique of Israel’s ongoing hyper-militarized settler colonialism. Masafer Yatta, it must be remembered, is still being ethnically cleansed to make room for an Israeli firing zone.  

In his speech, Adra called on “the world to take serious actions to stop the injustice and to stop the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people.” There was quite a bit of applause from the audience, but I could not help but wonder if the very narrow focus of the rest of Adra’s speech, how it concentrated on just one specific region of Palestine, or the mention of his infant daughter, were palliatives to make his call to “stop the injustice” more acceptable. Would there have been applause if Adra had asked for an end to the injustice “from the river to the sea?” 

Yuval Abraham’s speech, on the other hand, was a masterpiece of liberal hasbara, saviorism, and “both sides-ism.” He spoke of “both peoples” being “intertwined,” and called for the release of the Israeli hostages in Gaza, stressing that freedom for Palestinians would ensure the safety of his people. Nowhere in his speech was there even a hint of the questioning of Zionism, of the fact that Israel, by its mere existence, dispossesses the Palestinian people. His focus was very much on the present moment: ethnic cleansing in Masafer Yatta, but he made no mention of the fact that 80% of the population of the Gaza Strip -though he did mention Gaza – has been ethnically cleansed from towns and villages that are now in Israel. He steered away from the recognized word to correctly describe Israel’s crimes, even as he mentioned two legal systems, civilian for himself, and military for his “brother,” Basel. That word would have been “apartheid,” but liberal Zionists don’t use that term, just as they don’t mention that Israel’s very creation hinges on the ethnic cleansing of people from Yaffa, Haifa, Carmel, and so many other “Israeli” cities. Long before Masafar Yatta…

Abraham seemed smug as he took the opportunity to criticize American foreign policy as a hindrance to peace in Palestine. Yet I couldn’t help but wonder what exactly he meant by “the foreign policy in this country [the United States] is blocking this path.” Is Israel yearning for an end to the occupation, for an end to the genocide, for a return of Palestinian refugees to their towns and villages, but the U.S. is saying “No. We want you to continue?” Is the U.S. foreign policy dictating that Israelis vote for Netanyahu, Smotrich Bezalel, Itamar Ben-Gvir? Is U.S. foreign policy prompting Israelis to set up picnics in southern Israel, to watch the bombing of Gaza?

At a historic moment when he had the world’s attention, Yuval Abraham could have mentioned Israel’s ongoing starvation of the people in Gaza, despite the ceasefire agreement. Instead, he spoke of the “crimes of October 7.” He could have called for Israel’s implementation of Phase Two of the ceasefire agreement—which does stipulate the release of the remaining Israeli hostages, and which Israel itself is reneging on—instead, he spoke of a vague “release of the Israeli hostages,” as if Hamas, rather than Israel, were responsible for the delay. 

Cherished liberal buzzwords and concepts permeated Abraham’s speech: co-existence, not co-resistance, even though, in the documentary, Abraham actually does try to co-resist Israel’s land appropriation of Masafer Yatta. The takeaway for many viewers was the need for safety for the Israelis, but only passing mention of “safety” for Palestinians. There was no mention, heaven forbid, of ending the blockade of Gaza, or even, ending the illegal occupation of the West Bank. The words settler colonialism, occupation, return, blockade, starvation, genocide, and apartheid, were not uttered. 

 “No Other Land” may have won a well-deserved Oscar, but Abraham’s speech was the epitome of liberal Zionist hasbara, stealing the limelight from Palestinian strugglers to center the “good Israeli savior.”