Connect with us

RSS

How an Oscar-Nominated Movie Stirs Up Hatred of Jews

Illustrative: A Palestinian man walks near Israeli military vehicles, during an Israeli raid in Jenin, in the West Bank, August 31, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

I’m currently in Oaxaca, a beautiful city in Southern Mexico known for its cultural festivals and distinctive cuisine.

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 has at times violated 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 enormous suffering on the village. 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, and Grand Catedral de la Asuncion stands in the central square of Mexico City. In both of these places, visitors are welcome to come view the astonishing architecture, elaborate artwork, and other treasures. I myself visited both sites — and was able to walk freely and safely.

However, on that same visit to Mexico City, I also tried to attend a synagogue on 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 19th 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.

Furthermore, this movie depicts a complete conflation between the two-sides. Any Jewish settler who commits an act of violence against a Palestinian civilian is seen as a murderer, and castigated by the Israeli judicial system. In the Palestinian territories, however, anyone who commits an act of violence against a Jew is seen as a heroic Martyr, and is paid a salary for life via the Palestinian Authority’s “pay-for-slay” program.

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 — such as by giving a warning. But these warnings may not be given out of anger, intent to harm, or desire for revenge.

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 — 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.

Shlomo Levin is the author of the Human Rights Haggadah, and he writes about legal developments related to human rights issues of interest to the Jewish community. You can find him at https://hrhaggadah.com/.

The post How an Oscar-Nominated Movie Stirs Up Hatred of Jews first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

RSS

Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law

Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa

Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:

  • A “blatant violation of international law.”
  • A “violation of sovereignty.”
  • A “flagrant breach of international law.”

France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.

Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.

In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.

  • Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
  • However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
  • For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
  • Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
  • Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
  • Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.

In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.

These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.

Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.

Continue Reading

RSS

No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack

People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.

Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.

Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.

Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.

Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.

The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.

The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.

The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.

UAE condemnation of terror Mahmoud Abbas’ sham
“The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.

In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability.

The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.”

[United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025]

“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.

The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem.

It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region.

This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.”

[WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025]

Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.

Continue Reading

RSS

Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat

A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara

Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.

Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.

For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.

One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.

His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.

Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.

Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.

The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.  

The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.

Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News