Connect with us

RSS

Miami Beach Mayor Threatens to Terminate Lease, Cut Funding to Theater Screening Anti-Israel Film

Basel Adra, Rachel Szor, Hamdan Ballal and Yuval Abraham win the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature Film for “No Other Land” during the Oscars show at the 97th Academy Awards in Hollywood, Los Angeles, California, US, March 2, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Barria

Miami Beach Mayor Steven Meiner has proposed that the city terminate its lease of an independent, non-profit movie theater and stop funding to the venue because it is showing sold-out screenings of the anti-Israel Oscar-winning film “No Other Land.”

Earlier this month, O Cinema became the first theater in Miami to screen “No Other Land,” a film produced by Israelis and Palestinians that criticizes Israel and the country’s military actions while focusing on the demolition of a small community in the West Bank.

“No Other Land” won best documentary feature film at the 97th Academy Awards on March 2. It has been picked up for distribution in 24 countries but has no distributor in the US, so its filmmakers have been making individuals deals with cinemas, such as O Cinema. It premiered at the Miami Beach theater on March 14 and its screenings this week are sold out. The city of Miami Beach is listed as a supporter of O Cinema on its website.

Meiner is proposing that Miami Beach terminate its lease agreement with O Cinema – which is located on city property on the first floor of Old City Hall – suspend and terminate grant money to the theater, and discontinue any further funding. The Miami Beach City Commission will vote on the resolution on Wednesday.

The mayor’s proposal comes after he sent a letter to O Cinema on March 5, asking its CEO Vivian Marthell to cancel the theater’s screenings of “No Other Land.” He pointed out that Miami Beach has “has one of the largest concentrations of Jewish residents in the United States” and described the documentary as “hateful propaganda.” Meiner also wrote in the letter, obtained by the Miami Herald, that “No Other Land” is “antisemitic” and “a one-sided propaganda attack on the Jewish people that is not consistent with the values of our city and residents.” He asked Marthell “on behalf of the residents of Miami Beach” to reconsider the venue’s decision to screen the film.

“Unfortunately, Jews for thousands of years have heard this antisemitic rhetoric; I am just surprised that O Cinema, utilizing Miami Beach taxpayer funding, would willingly disseminate such hateful propaganda,” Meiner said. “Here in Miami Beach, our city has adopted a strong policy of support for the State of Israel in its struggle to defend itself and its residents against attacks by the terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Airing performances of the one-sided, inaccurate film ‘No Other Land’ at a movie theater facility owned by the city and operated by O Cinema is disappointing.”

The theater ignored Meiner’s letter and proceeded with its screenings of the controversial film.

During their acceptance speech at the Oscars earlier this month, the Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers of “No Other Land” accused Israel of “ethnic supremacy,” occupation, “injustice,” and “the ethnic cleaning of Palestinian people.” They also criticized the US for supporting Israel, claiming it blocks peace between Israel and Palestinians.

Israel’s Minister of Culture and Sports Miki Zohar said the film “amplifies narratives that distort Israel’s image.” He added that “turning the defamation of Israel into a tool for international promotion is not art — it is sabotage against the State of Israel, especially in the wake of the Oct. 7 massacre and the ongoing war.”

The filmmakers of “No Other Land” also made anti-Israel comments on stage when accepting the award for best documentary at the Berlin Film Festival in February 2024. They additionally called on Germany to cease arms exports to Israel. Their comments were criticized by Claudia Roth, Germany’s federal government commissioner for culture and the media, who described the remarks as “shockingly one-sided and characterized by deep hatred of Israel.”

O Cinema’s co-founder and board of directors chair Kareem Tabsch told NPR about Meiner’s threats, saying it “sounds like censorship to me.”

“We’ve always shown films that have sparked real strong sentiments and real strong opinions,” Tabsch added. “Throughout the years, we’ve certainly had vocal audience members or community members who’ve questioned some programming choices … But what we have never encountered is elected officials trying to dictate what we should and should not be showing. That’s certainly a first.”

Marthell shared with the Miami Herald a short speech explaining the theater’s position on the film that will be read at every screening at the venue.

“We understand the power of cinema and its ability to tell stories that matter. Yet, we also understand that some stories, especially those rooted in real-world conflicts, can evoke strong feelings and passionate reactions,” Marthell said. “But let me be clear: our decision to screen “No Other Land” is not a declaration of political alignment. It is, however, a bold reaffirmation of our fundamental belief that every voice deserves to be heard, even, and perhaps especially, when it challenges us.”

The post Miami Beach Mayor Threatens to Terminate Lease, Cut Funding to Theater Screening Anti-Israel Film first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Post Views: 358
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

RSS

Charlie Kirk Sought to Encourage Debate — His Murder Must Not Stop It

Charlie Kirk speaking at the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2025. Photo: Brian Snyder via Reuters Connect

I first became familiar with Charlie Kirk after October 7, 2023, when my TikTok algorithm began showing me videos of him fiercely, and quite effectively, debating students on college campuses, often those in keffiyehs and with purple hair.

Thus began my fascination with what I soon learned was a man who was dedicating his life to debating and promoting what he believed in.

Charlie Kirk was the face of the young Republican movement, respected even by some Democrats. He had a promising future ahead of him. As Ben Shapiro wrote: “That kid is going to be the head of the Republican National Convention one day.”

Kirk dedicated his life to debate. To disagreement. To hearing the other side and persuading with facts and truth. And this, tragically, cost him his life. His assassination represents the meager and devastating state of the West, a state we have slowly, almost willingly, been accepting for years now.

There is a deep intolerance for differences. People do not want to be persuaded. They do not want to consider another perspective. Instead, they condemn what they believe is wrong, clinging to black-and-white narratives, even when an entire gray area holds the broader picture. They turn their heads away from nuance. Kirk aimed to change that. He devoted his life to it, fully aware of the risks.

As Adam Rubenstein wisely wrote for The Free Press: “Kirk was not naïve. In the video after he is shot, you can see a security team of at least half a dozen bodyguards surround him and spirit him away. Like anyone speaking their mind in public these days, he knew there was a risk.”

Kirk’s assassination signifies a low point for this country — and another attack on free speech. It was an assassination of dialogue, of diplomacy, of the ability to disagree without destruction. And perhaps the most bitter irony is that it all happened on a college campus, an environment that should foster growth mindsets and open-mindedness.

This attack was not only an attack on Charlie Kirk. It was an attack on freedom of thought and expression. And while it succeeded in killing the bright and young 31-year-old so many of us admired, I hope that is a rallying call to protect the broader freedom of speech we still enjoy — at least in part — in this country.

Alma Bengio is Chief Growth Officer at The Algemeiner Journal and founder and writer for @lets.talk.conflict

Post Views: 8
Continue Reading

RSS

Jews Are Indigenous to the Land of Israel — and Everyone Should Know It

The Western Wall and Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Few words in modern political discourse carry as much distortion as “Palestine.” Today, the term is wielded not as history but as a weapon — designed to delegitimize the Jewish State and recast Jews as foreign colonizers in their own homeland.

Take away the propaganda, however, and one unshakable truth remains: the Jewish people are the indigenous nation of the Land of Israel. The Arab claim to “Palestinian indigeneity” simply does not line up with history.

The Jewish people trace their roots back over 3,000 years to the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who lived in the land of Canaan — later Israel. By the time of King David, Jerusalem was the capital of a united monarchy, and Solomon’s Temple stood as the spiritual and political center of Jewish life. Even after the Babylonian exile, Jews returned, rebuilt, and re-established their national life in Judea.

Despite invasions, destruction, and exile, Jews never abandoned their homeland. They remained in Jerusalem, Galilee, Hebron, Safed, and along the coast. Their prayers, rituals, and festivals kept the bond to Zion alive. This is not the story of outsiders — it is the story of the land’s first and most enduring nation.

Rome tried to sever that bond by force. After the Bar Kokhba revolt in the second century, Emperor Hadrian renamed Judea as Syria Palaestina , borrowing the name of the long-vanished Philistines, and turned Jerusalem into Aelia Capitolina. It was an act of erasure, meant to punish the Jews by striking even their name from the map.

But the attempt failed. Jews continued to live, pray, and return to their ancestral soil. A new label could not undo thousands of years of rootedness.

The Arab story is very different; their origins lie in the Arabian Peninsula. The earliest records available to us describe nomadic tribes in Arabia and the Syrian desert. Their cultural centers were Mecca, Medina, Yemen, and Petra. It was only in the 7th century, with the rise of Islam, that Arab armies exploded out of Arabia and conquered the region. By 636 CE, they had invaded Byzantine Judea; within a century they ruled from Spain to Persia. Their presence in Judea was the result of conquest, not continuity.

For over a thousand years, under successive empires — Umayyad, Abbasid, Crusader, Mamluk, Ottoman, and finally British — the local Arab population never called itself “Palestinian.” They identified as Arabs, Muslims, Christians, or by their city and clan. In fact, during the British Mandate, the word Palestinian referred almost exclusively to Jews: the Palestine Post was a Jewish newspaper, the Palestine Symphony Orchestra was Jewish, and the Palestine Brigade that fought in World War II was Jewish.

Many Arabs in the region rejected the label, insisting instead that they were part of greater Syria or the wider Arab nation.

Only in the mid-20th century, particularly under Yasser Arafat and the PLO, did a separate “Palestinian” identity emerge. It was born not from centuries of shared history but from a political need: to create a narrative that could challenge Jewish nationhood and delegitimize Israel. It was, and remains, a tool of war by other means.

This is the historical bottom line: Jews are the only people with an unbroken, 3,000 year bond to the Land of Israel. The name Palestine was a Roman punishment, not an Arab heritage. Arabs arrived in the 7th century as conquerors from Arabia. The idea of a Palestinian people is a modern invention, forged in the 20th century as part of a political campaign against the Jewish State.

Israel is not a colonial project. It is the restoration of an ancient nation to its ancestral homeland. Jews are not foreigners in Judea; they are Judea’s people. By every measure — historical, cultural, and even genetic — the Jewish nation’s claim is authentic, continuous, and undeniable.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.

Post Views: 6
Continue Reading

RSS

Israel Attacked Terrorists in Qatar — and the Media Attacked Israel

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

On Tuesday, September 9, Israel targeted those who sought its destruction and planned the barbaric October 7, 2023 massacre.

Israel launched the daring attack on the Hamas leadership in their Qatari safe haven, after their ongoing refusal to agree to a Gaza ceasefire deal and in the aftermath of a deadly terror attack in Jerusalem, which Hamas claimed responsibility for.

But the media still shilled for Hamas by making Israel look like a rogue state attacking a key diplomatic player and destroying any chance for peace.

News outlets used three methods to achieve this goal:

  • Direct accusations
  • Subtle differentiation between a “legitimate” Hamas political wing and its military one
  • The glorification of Qatar as a business hub rather than a terrorist hub

The Independent and The Washington Post shamelessly employed headlines that portrayed Israel as the regional bully and an aggressor randomly attacking other Middle East countries in a bid for regional domination.

Sky News even blamed Israel for a previous attack on Qatar, although the Iranian regime carried it out:

After we publicly highlighted it, Sky quietly rectified its faux pas with no acknowledgment of the correction.

Meanwhile, the Economist was worried that attacking the very terrorists who ordered the mass murder of Jews on Oct. 7 was “a bridge too far” and that Israel had “crossed a line:”

And the BBC’s security correspondent called Israel’s surprising act of self defense “a campaign of score settling:”

NPR and The Wall Street Journal took the subtle approach of creating a false dichotomy between Hamas’ military and political wings — although the entire group is internationally designated as a terror organization.

This naive approach depicted the targeted Hamas leaders as legitimate officials simply because they carried pens and wore suits instead of AK-47s and green headbands.

They may not have got their hands dirty but this does not absolve them from orchestrating numerous bloody terror attacks, including the slaughter and kidnapping of thousands of people in Israel on October 7, 2023.

Finally, many outlets decried the violation of Qatar’s sovereignty, painting it as a peace-seeking state focused on business and regional cooperation, rather than a patron of terrorists.

The New York Times went as far as calling Qatar “a safe haven for business and tourism in a volatile region,” while it was, in fact, a safe haven for the region’s top jihadists.

How can this media distortion be explained? Why is a facade of legitimacy conferred upon terrorists in suits?

There are only two possible answers: Either the media believe the facade the terrorists want to sell, or they are carrying out an anti-Israel agenda.

Both options are detrimental to professional journalism, as well as to basic human ethics.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Post Views: 10
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News