‘No Other Land’ Belongs in No Other Lands

I usually post about legal developments related to human rights issues, but today I decided to share a thought about the movie ‘No Other Land’ which is receiving quite a bit of publicity due to its nomination for an Oscar.

I’m currently in Oaxaca, a beautiful city in Southern Mexico known for its cultural festivals and distinctive cuisine. It’s far, far away from the Israel-Palestine conflict, both geographically and also because, unlike its much more powerful Northern neighbor, Mexico is not a political player in the Middle East.

Last weekend Oaxaca hosted a film festival. To my surprise, it featured the movie ‘No Other Land’ playing at a prominent venue in the center of town in the most prime viewing slot both Friday and Saturday nights.

‘No Other Land’ is a documentary about the destruction of a Palestinian village in the West Bank by Israel’s armed forces in order to construct a training ground for tanks. The movie details the struggles of the village’s residents, along with an Israeli ally, to protect their homes. It features village residents frantically removing possessions as houses are destroyed, and children playing amongst the ruins.

I am not in a position to judge the accuracy of this particular movie, but unfortunately there is no question that Israel is responsible for grave violations of the rights of West Bank residents. However, even if everything the movie depicts is correct, it’s bad for Israelis and Palestinians alike for it to be so widely shown.

Other than the one ally of the village, the movie portrays Israelis as violent land grabbers who callously bring upon the village enormous suffering. There is even a scene where a settler shoots a Palestinian at point blank range. The effect of seeing this will inevitably be to stir up yet more animosity towards Israelis and Jews. Considering the current torrent of Antisemitic hatred we now face, anything that encourages more religious, national, or ethnic strife risks further violating the right of Jewish people to live securely, free of discrimination.

For example, in the center of Oaxaca stands the ornate and historic Santo Domingo Church. In the central square of Mexico City is the Grand Catedral de la Asuncion. In both these places visitors are welcome to come view the astonishing architecture, elaborate artwork, and at the Catedral de la Asuncion the grand dual pipe organs and bell towers. There are no security checks, and tourists come and go as they please. I was even able to walk in off the street to observe while they celebrated a mass.

However, on that same visit to Mexico City I also tried to attend a synagogue Shabbat morning. When I arrived at a shul in the Polanco neighborhood I found it surrounded by an imposing fence and barbed wire. Numerous private guards absolutely refused to let me enter. Explaining that I was Jewish and passing through and even speaking Hebrew accomplished nothing. They were under strict orders: No one not known and vetted by the community enters the secure area inside the heavy fence.

And sadly, this is with good reason. We’ve recently seen synagogues attacked around the world and individuals merely appearing to be Jewish singled out for vicious violence. This stark difference between Jewish and Christian houses of worship gives us a simple lesson- Israel and Jews must be humanized and protected, not made the subject of yet more hate.

In his 19^th century seminal work on lashon hara, or slanderous speech, the Chafetz Chaim makes clear that derogatory speech, even if it is factually true, falls squarely within the Torah’s prohibition of slander. In fact, he states that slander based on truth may even be worse than falsehoods (Chafetz Chaim negative prohibition 3:2). The reason is that all derogatory speech necessarily increases strife and anger. The more it’s plausibly true, the more powerful the resentment it creates.

Of course, one may argue that publicizing violations of Palestinian rights is necessary as part of a constructive effort to right those wrongs. The Chafetz Chaim himself acknowledges that derogatory speech is permitted when needed to stop harm or prevent a loss. So, for example, if a business is cheating people it is permitted to warn potential customers if that is the best way to save them from being ripped off. But these warnings may not be given out of anger, intent to harm, or desire for revenge. Rather, they must be the product of an objective evaluation of whether the conflict caused by speaking ill of the business is outweighed by the benefits of these warnings.

Maybe in Israel itself this movie could catalyze some change. But here in Mexico, what purpose does it serve? Portraying Israelis as violent, greedy land grabbers will obviously stir up yet more hatred, but how will it help the situation in the Middle East? Sadly, the movie’s creators seem to have shown no regard for the harm it may cause to Jewish communities, aiming to distribute it far and wide in every theatre that will take it and complaining bitterly that in spite of the film being nominated for an Oscar major distributors have so far not picked it up.

To work towards a better future, we need to show the complexity of the conflict and humanize both sides. This is even more important in countries far from the Middle East, where audiences generally have less context and information upon which to base their opinions. In its zeal to help West Bank residents, this movie is only stirring up yet more anger that will hurt Jews and harden positions, making peace yet more elusive for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

A version of this article originally appeared in The Algemeiner