Uncategorized
With ‘Let It Be Morning’ and ‘Cinema Sabaya,’ Israeli filmmakers are winning awards for portraying Palestinian stories
(JTA) — Years ago, the Israeli filmmaker Orit Fouks Rotem took a class led by director Eran Kolirin, best known as the maker of “The Band’s Visit.” This month, movies by both filmmakers are getting theatrical rollouts in the United States.
On a recent Zoom call, Palestinian author Sayed Kashua joked: “Was that his class — how to use a Palestinian story?”
Kashua was smiling on Zoom as he said it — he is, after all, known for his often fatalistic sense of humor, particularly when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And the author had given his blessing for Kolirin to make an adaptation of his novel “Let It Be Morning,” and said he loved the final result.
But like most jokes, this one had a kernel of truth: Israel’s two most recent Oscar submissions, hitting New York’s Quad Cinema within a week of each other, both — to varying degrees — tell Palestinian stories.
“Let It Be Morning” is a dark comedy about an Arab Israeli village that has suddenly and with no explanation been cordoned off from the rest of the country by the Israeli military. This event forces its Palestinian residents, including a protagonist trying to return to his comfortable middle-class life in Jerusalem, to reckon with how their dignity as citizens has been denied to them by the mechanisms of the Israeli occupation. At the Quad, the film is accompanied by a retrospective of Kolirin’s work, including “The Band’s Visit,” the basis for the Tony Award-winning musical; the retrospective is sponsored by the Israeli consulate in New York.
The all-female cast of “Cinema Sabaya,” a mix of Jewish and Arab actresses, in a film directed by Orit Fouks Rotem. (Courtesy of Kino Lorber)
The following week will see the opening of Rotem’s film, “Cinema Sabaya.” It follows a group of eight women, some Jewish and some Arab and Palestinian, who bond with each other while taking a filmmaking class in a community center in the Israeli city of Hadera. Cast member Dana Ivgy, who plays the class’s instructor, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that the filming experience “felt like how living in Israel should feel,” adding, “We have more women in the film than in the Israeli government.”
Stylistically, the two films couldn’t be more different. “Let It Be Morning” is a tightly plotted narrative with boldly realized characters; almost all of its dialogue is in Arabic. “Cinema Sabaya” is a loose, heavily improvisational piece that is almost entirely set in one room, and is mostly in Hebrew (although in one tense early scene, the characters debate whether to conduct their class in Hebrew or Arabic). One is a dry, Kafkaesque satire; the other is an intimate, naturalistic drama.
But together, the films provide a snapshot of the delicate dance Israeli filmmakers must perform in the current climate. On the one hand, these art-house directors are being feted on the international stage for their empathetic storytelling that incorporates or even centers entirely on Palestinian characters. But on the other, they’re being attacked by government officials for their perceived insufficient loyalty — and their films’ very status as “Israeli” is being questioned, too, sometimes by their own cast and crew.
“Everyone can call it what they want,” Rotem said of her film. “I’m an Israeli and it’s in Israel, but I have partners who call themselves Palestinians, and some of them call themselves Arabs, and each one defined herself. I think it’s really how it should be.”
“A film does not have an identity,” Kolirin insisted in an interview with JTA. “It is a citizen of the screen.”
Eran Kolirin accepted the award for Best Director for “Let It Be Morning” at the 2021 Ophir Awards in Tel Aviv on October 5, 2021. (Tomer Neuberg/ Flash90)
Kolirin isn’t a fan of the label “Israeli film” in this case, even though that is how “Let It Be Morning” was categorized at its 2021 Cannes Film Festival premiere; its own press notes also list Israel as the “country of production.” That Cannes screening took place shortly after Israel’s deadly conflict with Hamas that killed more than 250 Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and around a dozen Israelis. The events turned Cannes into a political firestorm when the film’s Palestinian cast refused to attend the premiere.
“We cannot ignore the contradiction of the film’s entry into Cannes under the label of an ‘Israeli film’ when Israel continues to carry its decades-long colonial campaign of ethnic cleansing, expulsion, and apartheid against us — the Palestinian people,” the cast’s statement read in part.
“Each time the film industry assumes that we and our work fall under the ethno-national label of ‘Israeli,’ it further perpetuates an unacceptable reality that imposes on us, Palestinian artists with Israeli citizenship,” the statement continues, calling on “international artistic and cultural institutions” to “amplify the voices of Palestinian artists and creatives.”
Kolirin himself supported the cast’s action. He knew they were grieving over the outbreak of violence in Gaza and didn’t want to put themselves in a situation where “some politician is going to wave a flag over their head or whatever.”
What’s more, he said, the status of “Let It Be Morning” as an “Israeli” film, despite the fact that around half the crew was Palestinian, was not his decision: “The film was not submitted to Cannes as an Israeli film,” he said. “You know, you fill in the form: ‘Which were the countries that gave money?’” In this case, the answer was Israel and France.
Most of the cast later did not attend the Ophir Awards ceremony, Israel’s equivalent to the Oscars voted on by its filmmaking academy, where “Morning” won the top prize (which automatically made it Israel’s Oscar submission for that year). In solidarity at the awards, Kolirin read aloud a statement from his lead actress, Juna Suleiman, decrying Israel’s “active efforts to erase Palestinian identity” and what she called “ethnic cleansing.”
Orit Fouks Rotem (Courtesy of Kino Lorber)
“Cinema Sabaya” hasn’t played host to as much offscreen controversy, but its vision of Israeli multiculturalism is still inherently political. Rotem’s mother is a local government adviser on women’s issues in Hadera, and the film was inspired by her experience participating in a photography class designed to unite Jewish and Arab women. Rotem herself later led filmmaking classes in a similar vein as research for “Sabaya.”
In the film, Ivgy’s character, who is modeled on Rotem, instructs her class to film their home lives, while secretly hoping to make a movie from their efforts. When her desire to do so is revealed, the women in the class feel betrayed: They thought they were just making films for themselves, not for their stories to be told by someone else.
Similarly, Rotem said that working with Arab and Palestinian actresses made her “aware to the fact that I can’t really tell their story.” Her solution was to allow the performers — some of whom are well-known activists who had to think twice about appearing in an Israeli movie — to voice their own opinions, and to establish the necessary trust to allow them to be unscripted on camera.
She theorizes that “Cinema Sabaya” has been so well received in Israel because “it doesn’t say ‘occupation, occupation, occupation.’ It says ‘humanity,’ so people are less afraid.” (She also noted that, in real life, the women who attended her filmmaking classes bristled at her initial suggestion to make a documentary about them, telling her to fictionalize their stories instead — which she did.)
Lately the Israeli government has a tendency to view its filmmaking class as agitators unworthy of national support, particularly when they make films criticizing the occupation. Former Culture Minister Miri Regev often disparaged films she thought were bad for Israel, including celebrated international hits such as “Foxtrot” and “Synonyms.” Her current successor, Miki Zohar, has already threatened the makers of a new documentary about the West Bank city of Hebron, saying the movie smears the military and that the directors might have to return government funds.
In recent years, Israel’s culture ministry has pushed two new controversial proposals: a grant program earmarked for those who make films in settlements, which are considered illegal under international law; and a form pledging not to make films “offensive” to Israel or the military that filmmakers would be required to sign in order to apply for certain grants, which many directors have likened to a loyalty oath. For years, some of the country’s largest grantmakers have required applicants to sign a form promising to represent their projects as Israeli on the national stage.
There has also been an effort among some members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s new right-wing government to end funding to public broadcaster Kan, which the country’s film industry views as another attack on its free expression.
“Kan has all this dialogue,” Ivgy said. “It has Jewish and religious and Arab and Palestinian, for kids and for grownups. And nothing is taboo there. I feel that it’s very dangerous to close that option down.”
Many Israeli filmmakers are fighting back. Hundreds, including Kolirin and Rotem, have refused to sign the ministry’s pledge, and many have also protested the settlement grant program. Nadav Lapid, one of the country’s most celebrated and outspoken directors, harshly critiqued government restrictions placed on his own work in the 2021 drama “Ahed’s Knee,” which went on to win a special prize at Cannes.
Kolirin said he had recently been on a call with several Israeli filmmakers looking to further organize against artistic restrictions, and that it had given him hope. “I had this feeling of some optimism, which I didn’t have for a long time,” he said. But he didn’t mince words when discussing Israel’s new governing coalition, which he likened to “a circus of mad dogs unleashed.”
Rotem said that the current government is “very, very bad and scary,” but that it has only strengthened her resolve to make political films.
“For me, it’s also political to show women in Israel in a deep way: I mean Arabs and Jews,” she said. “Because I don’t think there are enough films that are doing that.”
For Kashua, a veteran TV writer and opinion columnist, the question of identity in Israeli and Palestinian filmmaking is even more pronounced. After a long career of trying to write about the Palestinian experience in Hebrew as a way of reaching Israelis, he left Israel for the United States in 2014, becoming discouraged by an incident in which Jewish extremists burned a Palestinian teenager alive as revenge after Palestinian terrorists kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Now based in St. Louis, he has worked as a writer and story editor on Israeli series that center on both Palestinian and Jewish stories — including the global hit “Shtisel,” which focuses on haredi Orthodox Jews, and its upcoming spinoff, along with “Madrasa,” a young-adult series about a bilingual Hebrew-Arabic school.
Israeli filmmakers choosing to center Palestinian stories can be its own radical political act, Kashua believes. He noted that the dialogue in “Morning” is almost entirely in Arabic, a language that Israel demoted from national language status in 2018 — doubly ironic as he had deliberately chosen to write his original novel in Hebrew.
“The idea that this film is ‘Israeli’ — it really contradicts the idea of Israel being a purely Jewish state,” Kashua said. He added that, while he had initially hoped a Palestinian director might have adapted his novel, he was ultimately happy with Kolirin’s approach.
“I truly love the movie, and it’s barely Orientalist,” he joked, echoing Palestinian-American intellectual Edward Said’s famous book about how a Western lens on Eastern cultures can be reductive and harmful. “Which is a big achievement for an Israeli filmmaker.”
—
The post With ‘Let It Be Morning’ and ‘Cinema Sabaya,’ Israeli filmmakers are winning awards for portraying Palestinian stories appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel Targets Hezbollah Fighters Disguised as Paramedics as Terror Group Continues to Exploit Civilian Sites
Israeli soldiers walk next to military vehicles on the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, amid escalation between Hezbollah and Israel, and amid the US-Israeli conflict with Iran, in northern Israel, March 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Avi Ohayon
Israel on Sunday night intercepted a Hezbollah operation in southern Lebanon, targeting a terrorist cell disguised as paramedics who tried to transport weapons in an ambulance toward Israeli forces.
The Israeli strike further exposed the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group’s use of civilians and even medical vehicles as cover for attacks.
According to Israeli intelligence, Hezbollah has fired thousands of drones and rockets toward the Jewish state since joining the war in support of Iran earlier this month, brazenly using ambulances and medical facilities as cover and embedding their weapons and operation hubs in various civilian sites.
“This incident is another example of Hezbollah’s cynical and systematic use of medical infrastructure for military purposes,” the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement.
Last week, Israel discovered a tunnel used by Hezbollah in a church in southern Lebanon, where the terrorist group has spent years building infrastructure to attack the Jewish state.
Hezbollah tunnel at a church in southern Lebanon https://t.co/5mTGP7uSvz
— Matthew Levitt (@Levitt_Matt) March 27, 2026
Under international law, deliberately using medical teams and ambulances to conceal military activity constitutes a serious violation, as battlefield protections for medical personnel apply only when they act strictly within their humanitarian role.
As the conflict in Lebanon continues to escalate, Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that once ambulances and medical teams become part of Hezbollah’s weapons transport network, they lose their protected status and become legitimate military targets.
On Monday, the IDF destroyed more than 100 high-rise towers in southern Lebanon serving as Hezbollah’s command, control, and attack-planning centers against Israeli citizens – in what officials described as the terrorist group’s “cynical exploitation of Lebanese citizens,” embedding military infrastructure amid civilian areas.
PHOTOS: Israeli soldiers discover Hezbollah weapons cache—including RPGs, mortars, hand grenades, launchers, land mines, explosive bricks, and rifles—in southern Lebanon school. (IDF) pic.twitter.com/2HIpFtPLTQ
— Avi Mayer אבי מאיר (@AviMayer) March 27, 2026
With a ground maneuver underway to expand a defensive zone in southern Lebanon, the IDF says it has eliminated over 850 Hezbollah terrorists so far, while continuing to dismantle the group’s command and weapons infrastructure.
Last week, Israeli forces ordered the evacuation of the southern Lebanese city of Tyre, after identifying Hezbollah operatives launching heavy rocket fire from residential neighborhoods, issuing the order ahead of airstrikes to safeguard civilians from the escalating attacks.
“Hezbollah, which has dragged you into this war in service of Iran’s agenda, is deliberately operating within your neighborhoods, putting your safety at grave risk and bringing destruction to your homes and communities,” the military’s Arabic spokesperson, Col. (res.) Avichay Adraee wrote in a post on X, appealing to Lebanese citizens.
For years, Hezbollah has embedded command posts, weapons depots, snipers, and troops within Shiite villages, situating them in the heart of civilian centers near schools, hospitals, mosques, and main roads to turn entire communities into battlefields.
“We found them hiding weapons in a children’s school. We found them building a tunnel in the complex of a church in al-Kiam,” IDF International Spokesperson Lt. Col. Nadav Shoshani said during a briefing to journalists.
In recent weeks, Israel has intensified strikes targeting Hezbollah, particularly south of the Litani River, where the group’s operatives have historically been most active against the Jewish state.
Israel has long demanded that Hezbollah be barred from carrying out activities south of the Litani, located roughly 15 miles from the Israeli border.
The IDF is now moving into Lebanon to establish what officials described as a “forward defensive line,” targeting Hezbollah infrastructure and destroying buildings that were being used as operational “terrorist outposts.”
As reports surfaced of potential ceasefire talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials, Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem warned Wednesday that negotiating under fire amounts to imposed surrender, adding that his fighters are prepared to continue operations “without limits.”
In just the first month of the conflict, Israeli officials report that Hezbollah has carried out more than 900 coordinated attacks, marking a sharp increase in cross-border activity and a broader expansion of its operations across the region.
So far, Israel has demolished five bridges in the Litani River area and taken effective control of three others, aiming to dominate the area from the air and prevent residents from returning south of the river until the threat of Hezbollah is removed.
Uncategorized
DNC to Consider Resolution Condemning AIPAC
Crews prepare the stage at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 6, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Brian Snyder
A newly introduced resolution within the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is putting the party’s relationship with pro-Israel lobbying money under renewed scrutiny, exposing a deepening divide between its progressive base and establishment leadership.
The measure, which is nonbinding, calls on Democrats across the US to reject or distance themselves from funding tied to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobbying group, and its affiliated political entities. While largely symbolic, the resolution would compel party officials and candidates to publicly take a position on whether to accept such financial support.
Allison Minnerly, a DNC member from Florida who sponsored the resolution, argues that the committee needs to take a more aggressive stance in fighting on behalf of Palestinians.
“At a time when Democratic voters might really not have felt represented or seen when it came to Gaza or seeing their party support Palestinian rights or stand against military conflict, this could be one step toward bringing those voters back into the party,” she told The Intercept.
Minnerly also presented a resolution last August which called for an arms embargo against Israel. That measure failed.
The new resolution comes as AIPAC and allied super PACs have become increasingly influential in Democratic primaries, spending millions to back candidates aligned with their positions. Critics within the party argue that this influx of money, including donations from Republican-aligned contributors, risks distorting Democratic contests and elevating outside influence.
The resolution condemns AIPAC for its purported attempts to influence Democratic politics surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and undermining efforts to fortify “Palestinian rights” in Israel. The resolution accuses AIPAC of pouring over $100 million into Democratic competitions in an attempt to shift overall results.
The resolution raises general concerns about the role of nonprofit and political groups that can obscure the origins of campaign funding, intensifying calls for greater transparency.
Progressive Democrats and grassroots activists are driving the push for the resolution, framing it as part of a broader effort to limit the influence of big money in politics. Many argue that AIPAC’s policy positions, particularly in the context of the Gaza conflict, are increasingly out of step with Democratic voters. The resolution specifically accuses AIPAC of influencing Democratic candidates to adopt positions on the Israel-Hamas conflict that are not adequately reflective of “the views of their constituents.”
Supporters say the resolution is less about enforcement and more about signaling, drawing a clear line on the type of financial backing the party should accept.
Party leaders and more moderate Democrats have approached discourse regarding the Israel-Hamas war cautiously. Centrist Democrats and those in heavily Jewish districts have balanced their support for Israel’s right to self-defense with concern over the humanitarian toll in Gaza. In progressive districts, however, anti-Israel positions have emerged as a litmus test in primaries, with candidates being grilled on whether they will vote to cease arms transfers to the Jewish state or whether they consider the military conflict in Gaza a “genocide.”
Despite the pressure campaign to dislodge the Democratic party from Israel, many moderate liberals point to AIPAC’s long-standing support for Democratic candidates and warn that rejecting its backing could put candidates at a disadvantage in competitive races. Others emphasize the importance of maintaining relationships with pro-Israel constituencies, suggesting that a sweeping break could carry political risks. However, others have accused AIPAC of bankrolling Republican and pro-Trump candidates to the expense of Democrats.
AIPAC contends that it supports pro-Israel candidates regardless of political affiliation, arguing the American-Israeli relationship is bipartisan and advances US interests. Further, other lobbying groups which support foreign countries, such as the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), donate funds and support to American candidates with little controversy.
The fight over the resolution reflects a larger transformation within the Democratic Party, as shifting voter attitudes and growing skepticism of large-scale political spending reshape internal dynamics. Polling suggests that the Democratic party has largely shifted against Israel, especially among younger voters. Ambitious Democratic hopefuls are reassessing their messaging and position on Israel, with progressive liberals aggressively condemning the country for committing a so-called “genocide” in Gaza.
As the DNC considers the measure, the outcome could serve as a signal of where the party stands in an evolving political landscape.
Uncategorized
Catholic University of America Under Fire for Requiring ‘Opposing Viewpoint’ for Combating Antisemitism Event
A general view of the Catholic University of America (CUA) campus in Washington, DC. Photo: Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
The Catholic University of America (CUA) is being criticized for denying the Students Supporting Israel campus organization approval to host events on combating antisemitism and defending Israeli security unless it agrees to feature “opposing viewpoints.”
The episode began earlier this month when Students Supporting Israel (SSI), a national organization that has faced opposition from CUA before, publicly complained that the university refused to sanction both an event in which US Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) would discuss “ending campus antisemitism” and another featuring an Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier with experience in resisting jihadist terrorism along Israel’s security fence with the West Bank.
According to university policy, civil dialogue on the contemporary issues can’t be held unless it includes “speakers representing both sides.” While the policy purports to promote intellectual exchange, critics say it has the effect of compelling speech or censoring it altogether by imposing conditions on free speech to which no group could agree without undermining its mission.
In SSI’s case, the group has said that CUA’s policy demands the participation of anti-Israel, even antisemitic voices who would leverage a speaking engagement to utter dehumanizing opinions about Jews or propaganda confected by the Hamas terrorist organization and other groups which seek to destroy the world’s only Jewish state.
The case has now become the cause of the Foundation for Individual Right and Expression (FIRE), a group which has at times disagreed with the pro-Israel community’s outlook on free speech issues.
“While CUA is a private university and therefore not bound by the First Amendment, it is legally and morally bound to adhere to the institutional commitments it has voluntarily made to protect students’ freedom of speech,” FIRE said on March 18 in a blistering demand letter to the university. “Forcing student organizations ‘to host or accommodate another speaker’s message,’ even in the service of providing a greater range of views, inevitable ‘alters the expressive content’ of the event. Having made these free speech commitments, it is no more appropriate for CUA to require Students Supporting Israel to host speakers who oppose Israel than it would be for the federal or state government to force CUA to couple its institutional pro-Catholic messages with anti-Catholic viewpoints.”
This is not the first time that the Catholic University of America has allegedly trampled on the rights of pro-Israel advocates.
In October, it allegedly used bureaucratic obstruction to suppress Jewish grieving and commemoration of the children, women, and men whom Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists murdered during the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in southern Israel by canceling a memorial display that was approved in August.
According to the school’s SSI chapter, university officials cited an arcane policy which proscribes flying the flag of any foreign nation, except for that of the Vatican, on campus. However, SSI maintains that it was selectively applied to it with malice, citing that anti-Israel organizations have flown the Palestinian flag on campus numerous times, with and without official permission, as have many other organizations.
At the time, The Algemeiner requested photographic evidence of SSI’s claims of selective enforcement, to which the group responded by sending several pictures showing dozens of foreign flags flying on the campus, including those representing the nations of Brazil, France, and Ukraine. The group added that after canceling SSI’s memorial for the second anniversary of the Oct. 7 atrocities, university staff marched toward the event spaces and dismantled everything SSI had set up and topped off the act by stuffing Israeli flags into a plastic bag, which was left on a random office chair as an afterthought.
On Monday, SSI president Felipe Avila told The Algemeiner that CUA has a pattern of squelching pro-Israel speech.
“These event details are not isolated incidents; they represent a systemic pattern of discrimination we have faced since our founding,” Avila said. “From the dismantling of our Oct. 7 memorial to the unequal enforcement of event guidelines today, administrators consistently place insurmountable hurdles in front of our students. We should not be forced to platform competing viewpoints as a condition of discussing our own community’s safety and security.”
Citing the Second Vatican Council’s rejection of antisemitism in the Catholic Church, he added, “Students Supporting Israel will continue to vigorously defend our right to speak out against antisemitism, in the very spirit of the Church’s own teaching in Nostra Aetate.”
Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.