"The oracles they gave you were false and misleading." Lamentations 2:14

Hollywood on Israel.

Award winning movies - truth or entertainment?

Hollywood is primarily an entertainment provider and its celebrities appear to be liberal, woke etc. In spite of being an entertainment factory, it tends to take itself and its political outlook unduly seriously. Operating in its liberal bubble, actors, directors, etc feel qualified to preach their politics to the world from their platform of entertainment products. And, unfortunately, in the echo chamber world their ill informed opinions are unquestioningly consumed by their ill informed consumers.

Why should we accept being lectured about complex world issues by somebody because they are photogenic and good at portraying fictious actions and emotions?

The glitz and glamour of their self congratulatory events such as the Oscars presentations are popular media material.

The 2025 Oscars made a great fuss over "No Other Home", a story about the life of Palestinians in the so called "occupied west bank"

However popular this film may prove to be, the event and the praise were not concerned with the truth or honesty of the story presented.

Rachel O'Donoghue observed, for Honest Reporting, March 3, 2025

"Media Spins 'No Other Land' Oscar Win Into Yet Another Fake 'Israeli Settlers' Story In an evening of glitz, red carpet pageantry, and self-congratulatory speeches at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles, one Oscar win was as predictable as the show's nearly four-hour runtime: Best Feature-Length Documentary for "No Other Land".

The award went to the Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers behind "No Other Land," a film chronicling Palestinian activist Basel Adra as he supposedly 'risks arrest to document the destruction of his hometown' in Masafer Yatta, at the southern edge of the West Bank.

Hardly a shock. Not only was it the frontrunner, but it ticked all the right boxes for an Academy that never misses a chance to celebrate a politically fashionable pick. And with Israel dominating the headlines since the October 7 Hamas attacks and the ensuing war against the terrorist group, it didn't take a fortune teller to predict this win. Cue the victory speeches: Adra took the stage alongside Israeli filmmaker Yuval Abraham, who used his moment to chastise the United States for blocking 'a political solution, without ethnic supremacy, with national rights for both of our people.' The line earned a rousing cheer because what better way to celebrate cinematic achievement than by tossing out oversimplified, self-righteous slogans?

Also predictably, the media muddled its reporting on No Other Land's subject matter. Many outlets seemed convinced that Masafer Yatta is some ancient Palestinian village network, systematically uprooted in recent decades to make way for Israeli settlers, which, of course, is exactly the narrative the filmmakers wanted to push.

Gil Hoffman (Honest Reporting) March 3, 2025 - The Truth About Masafer Yatta

"Historically, Masafer Yatta was a grazing ground for Bedouins and locals from the nearby town of Yatta - land they used but never permanently settled. Those who stayed for extended periods lived in caves, not in established villages. In the early 1980s, the IDF designated the area as Training Zone 918, a military training ground. The arrangement was simple: locals could continue grazing their flocks, and the IDF would provide advance notice when live-fire exercises were scheduled. This system worked with little controversy for nearly two decades. Then, in 1997, things shifted. Palestinians petitioned the Israeli High Court to revoke the training zone designation. At the same time, illegal construction ramped up. Permanent structures began appearing, first in small clusters and then expanding into what is now generously described as the "12 villages" of Masafer Yatta. Under the Oslo Accords, Israel maintains full control over this area - known as Area C - until a final status agreement is reached. But that didn't stop the creeping expansion, which military sources say wasn't about housing a growing population but about creating political "facts on the ground." Many structures, they report, stand empty, existing solely to inflate the appearance of a permanent Palestinian presence.

By 2000, the Israeli High Court halted evacuations but explicitly banned further construction - rules that were promptly ignored. The IDF offered compromises, allowing access on weekends, Jewish holidays, and for two months each year, all of which were rejected. It even approved permanent settlement in parts of the zone's northwest section, but the legal battle dragged on. After years of legal wrangling, the court ruled in favor of the IDF: the training zone designation stood, and illegal structures could be dismantled.

Yet despite breathless media reports of "displacement," the reality remains: evacuations have been minimal, the illegal buildings are still there, and the so-called "villages" remain.

(Recommended Reading: Masafer Yatta & Khan al-Ahmar: Behind the Headlines)

So naturally, by Monday morning, Israel woke up to a wave of skewed coverage about No Other Land's win, all of it framing the Masafer Yatta dispute as somehow tied to Israeli settlers.

ABC News, for example, suggested the issue was part of Israel's broader "settlement expansion," stating: "Israel's demolition efforts in the West Bank, on what Israel considers to be illegal structures, have largely been in an effort to clear the way for Israeli settlers to move into the region for reasons including religious beliefs and improved quality of life."

CNN failed even to mention that the so-called "collection of villages" in the Hebron hills consists of indisputably illegal structures while also tying the dispute to "the encroachment of Jewish settlers for decades."

The BBC didn't even bother including the fact that Masafer Yatta is a military training ground, leaving readers with the entirely false impression that Israel cleared the area for settlers: And stating, "Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967. Israeli settlements in the territory are considered illegal under international law though Israel disputes this. They have expanded over the past 55 years, becoming a focal point of violence and conflicting claims over land."

The film contains footage obtained by fakery. (reported by JNS and United with Israel Staff) Footage has emerged of filmmakers provoking IDF soldiers behind the scenes of what was presented in their award-winning film as 'settler violence and IDF cruelty.'

The Mount Hebron Regional Council, which administers Jewish towns in southern Judea, published never-before-seen footage on Wednesday showing 2025 "Best Documentary Oscar" winners Yuval Abraham and Basel Adra harassing a group of Israel Defense Forces soldiers in the area. "This scene is described in the film as 'settler violence and IDF cruelty in Massafer Yatta.' In reality, it was just a planned, staged provocation and harassment of IDF soldiers in IDF Firing Zone 918," the regional council said in a joint statement with the Regavim Movement lobbying group. The activists featured in Abraham and Adra's award-winning film "No Other Land" are "nothing but paid actors," the statement concluded.

In the IDF body-cam footage, Abraham and Adra can be seen joining a group of far-left activists with cameras who attempt to back several Israeli soldiers providing security in the area into a corner. "Back off! Get out of here! Back off!" Abraham screams at the soldiers, accusing one of them of sexually harassing him and other activists.

"Who do you think you are, talking to soldiers like that? Shame on you," troops tell him, adding: "Who did I touch? My hands are in my pockets." Israeli Minister of Culture and Sports Miki Zohar shared the footage on X, tweeting: "Oscar winners should be ashamed that their title was achieved by abusing IDF soldiers who fight to defend the country."

This was not the first time Adra was exposed engaging in dubious filmmaking. In 2021, Israeli news showed footage of IDF soldiers catching Adra setting fire to Arab structures (Palestinian homes), then blaming Jews for the arson. The incident was later confirmed by the IDF spokesperson. Soldiers caught them, and this was later confirmed by the IDF spokesperson.

One might say that this film, honoured as a documentary, is actually a work of fiction and propaganda masquerading as a documentary.

So the film will go into distribution spreading more falsehoods to the willing public, adding fuel to the already growing anti-Semitism. The facts were lost, and Masafer Yatta became yet another simplistic media tale in which Israel is, conveniently, the villain.

(I did hear that USA distributors will not be taking this movie, but the future remains to be seen.)

Stephen Spielberg's  "Munich"

How did Stephen Spielberg's film, 'Munich' influence public attitudes towards Israel?

See also Olympics, concerning the refusal to commemorate the events of Munich at the London 2012 Olympics.

While the movie has ceased to be news, the issues of commercial cinema affecting public perception and sympathy remain relevant.

The following comments were gleaned from a Google search on "Stephen Spielberg" and "Munich".

David Gritten, Daily Telegraph

Steven Spielberg's wants his new film Munich - which he describes as "a prayer for peace" - to provoke an international debate about terrorism.   It deals with the aftermath of the capture and murder of 11 Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists at the Munich Olympic Games in 1972.

The 160-minute film opens with the statement that it is "inspired by real events" and centres on a five-man assassination squad, sanctioned by Israeli president Golda Meir, who are ordered to kill 11 Palestinians responsible for the atrocity at the Munich Games.

Spielberg seems less interested in chasing awards than in using the film to provoke an international debate about terrorism.

Stephen Spielberg

"Viewing Israel's response to Munich through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy adds a human dimension to a horrific episode that we usually think about only in political or military terms," By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic stand-off we find ourselves in today.

But is this scenario truthful or ideologicaly desirable?

Leon Wieseltier said,

The fakery is everywhere, isn't it, though in this instance it nicely captures the self-importance of this pseudo-controversial film. The makers of Munich seem to think that it is itself an intervention in the historical conflict that it portrays.

The film is soaked in the sweat of its idea of even-handedness. Palestinians murder, Israelis murder. Palestinians show evidence of a conscience, Israelis show evidence of a conscience.  Palestinians suppress their scruples, Israelis suppress their scruples.  Palestinians make little speeches about home and blood and soil, Israelis make little speeches about home and blood and soil. Palestinians kill innocents, Israelis kill innocents.

All these analogies begin to look ominously like the sin of equivalence, and so it is worth pointing out that the death of innocents was an Israeli mistake but a Palestinian objective.

The screenplay is substantially the work of Tony Kushner, whose hand is easily recognizable in the crudely schematic quality of the drama, and also in something more. The film has no place in its heart for Israel.

Tony Kushner said,

"Zionism is not the right answer" and "the creation of Israel was "a mistake," and that "establishing a state means f---ing people over. I never like to draw lessons for people," he said of how his script deals with the Middle East question. It's not an essay; it's art."

Ilana Romano, who with, fellow widow Ankie Spitzer, attended an exclusive courtesy screening of "Munich was satisfied that the movie did not dishonor the memory of the murdered athletes, nor to the image of the State of Israel.

But Veterans of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency came out of the cold to question Spielberg's sourcing after it emerged that Munich was based in part on "Vengeance," a 1984 book drawn from the purported confessions of a former assassin who said he broke rank in protest at the retaliation policy.

David Kimche, a former Mossad deputy director said,

"I think it is a tragedy that a person of the stature of Steven Spielberg, who has made such fantastic films, should have based this film on a book that is a falsehood,"

Mohammad Daoud, Black September mastermind, also questioned the basis for Spielberg's portrayal.

Calev Ben-David accused Mr Spielberg of

"using Munich as a means of commenting, in your own way, on the situation of the United States in a post-9/11 reality."

Time reviewer Richard Schickel, commented that, a high point is a fictional scene in which the lead Israeli meets a PLO member "with the latter getting a chance to make his case for the creation of a homeland for his people." As though the conflict is simply over a Palestinian homeland.

In a recent sermon, a PA-employed cleric declared:

"We have ruled the world before, and by Allah, the day will come when we will rule the entire world again .... We will rule America ... [and] Britain and the entire world -- except for the Jews.   The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquillity under our rule .... Listen to the Prophet Mohammed, who tells you about the end that awaits Jews.   The stones and trees will want the Muslims to finish off every Jew."

John Williams said of his musical score, that he created "a kind of prayer for peace, a lyrical composition associated with Avner (Eric Bana) and the home he leaves behind in Israel," and another theme for solo voice and orchestra "that accompanies one of several flashbacks to the tarmac at Munich,

Searching for an authentic Palestinian sound, Williams employed the oud, a Middle Eastern lute, and added the cimbalom, a Hungarian zither, as well as clarinet and strings for "an almost fantastically Oriental quality," he said.

To sum up

Stephen Spielberg is widely respected and has established Jewish credentials for "Schindler�s List", but does that make what he has to say in this film worth taking notice of?   He has done what he does best, in making a movie, which tells a story effectively.   Being a top film maker does not qualify Spielberg to offer a simplistic solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.   Spielberg may be a Jew, but he does not choose to live in Israel but to live and work in Hollywood, USA.   As such he can better be viewed as part of the secular, liberal world which believes that compromise and imposing a moral equivalence (without making judgments concerning right and wrong) can be the solution to every conflict. 

"Munich" attempted much more than memorializing the victims of the Munich massacre, where "Schindler's List" did not try to equate the Jews and the Nazis or to propose naive solutions to profound problems.

This film probably reinforced the prejudices of those who hate Israel.

Updated 18/03/25

Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page