PACBI’s position on ‘No Other Land’ (and its response to criticisms of its position)

While PACBI has taken a clear position on normalization in how the film was produced, PACBI has not called for a boycott of the film, intentionally so.

PACBI consistently distinguishes between a held position (whether private or public) and an explicit call for boycott, precisely because in certain contexts, such as in the Western mainstream, a boycott may be counterproductive, whereas in other contexts, including but not limited to the Arab region, the harm done from screening the film would outdo any benefits (see the response to question 3 below on harms). BDS has always considered context sensitivity a key operational principle.

Millions who have watched the live-streamed US-Israeli genocide of 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza and have channeled their anger and grief into mass, strategic, principled and effective actions and campaigns do not need this film to convince them or others about Israel’s 76-year-old regime of settler-colonialism and apartheid or about the legendary Palestinian resilience and resistance to dismantle it. In the context of the Arab world, and to a lesser extent in much of the Global South, screening a film whose production includes dimensions of normalization would make it seem like the anti-occupation ends justify the normalization means, and would be far more harmful than the educational value the film would have there.

Raising awareness about Palestine, particularly in the Arab world and the Global South, should not be tainted with normalization. There are so many award-winning Palestinian, Arab, and international films out there that are not tainted in this way. There are also films by anti-Zionist Jewish-Israelis who also serve the Palestinian cause well without being tainted by any normalization (see more in the response to question 2 below).

In the colonial West, state, corporate and institutional complicity in Israel’s occupation, apartheid and genocide is still dominant — indeed it makes up most of all global complicity. Therefore challenging the racist dehumanization of Palestinians there is critical, albeit fraught with deep forms of state-sponsored censorship, repression and violence. In such a context, a boycott of the film in mainstream circles, as opposed to Palestine film festivals and solidarity circles, could be counterproductive. Raising awareness about the struggle against Israel’s military occupation and ethnic cleansing through the focus on Masafer Yatta in this film is obviously important to expose in such contexts.

Regardless, it is important to distinguish between the positions of the consensus-based BDS movement, led by the largest Palestinian coalition in Palestine and exile (the BNC) on one hand, and calls for boycott that are motivated by political “purity” with little concern about building coalitions, accumulating people power, or having any meaningful impact. The movement has therefore consistently rejected purity politics and sloganeering that ignores the ethical responsibility to be effective, strategic and goal-oriented while adhering to our principles. Our decision is always determined by our principles, first and foremost, while trying to balance these principles with strategic effectiveness and context sensitivity. This is what we call “strategic radicalism.”

PACBI refrained for over a year from publishing the position it had reached very early on that this production irrefutably conflicts with the BDS movement’s anti-normalization guidelines. This, like all PACBI decisions, was based on an intersection between ethical principles and strategic considerations. The latter include the movement’s priorities, capacities, and indeed the harm-benefit balance. PACBI assessed that overall, this film was a far lower priority to call out in public than many other projects that are irrefutably worse (i.e., Disney and Marvel’s revival of the racist Sabra/Ruth Bat-Seraph character in the latest Captain America movie, or Disney’s Snow White film starring Gal Gadot, a cultural ambassador of Israel who has hosted screenings of an Israeli military propaganda film justifying the genocide).

The content of an artistic project is not strictly relevant in PACBI’s decision-making process on whether the project violates BDS anti-normalization guidelines. Unless a particular cultural product is inciting war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide, the content does not play a role in determining whether or not it is boycottable according to BDS guidelines. PACBI adheres to the internationally-accepted principle of freedom of expression and therefore avoids political and ideological litmus tests, including when dealing with issues of normalization.

PACBI’s overall assessment, prior to the Oscars, was that the expected harm for the Palestinian struggle from publicly criticizing the production’s normalization was significantly higher than the expected benefit. This had to do with several factors, such as the film’s potential usefulness in some Western contexts, and the fact that one of the directors has exposed aspects of Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, including the use of artificial intelligence in mass targeting. Yet, even then, PACBI consistently shared, in private, its objective position in response to inquiries received from Palestine film festivals and many filmmakers, always explaining why it was not strategic to go public with this position at that time.

After the film’s Oscar win, and to a lesser extent after the speech by the same Israeli filmmaker parroting Zionist talking points on Gaza, the risk of the film normalizing normalization with Israel’s regime of oppression dramatically increased, regardless of intentions. This became the most important political consideration, raising the benefit from calling out the film’s normalization especially in the Arab region to a very high level, well above any harm that may result from this position in the West. This is also why the position was originally crafted and released in Arabic for an Arab** audience, which often has very different, and diverse, considerations that the movement takes into account in making its decisions (more on this in the reply to question 3 below).

It is important to recognize that, unlike most partners operating in local or regional contexts, PACBI must take into account the global context and global audiences, and is not operating in only one part of the world. Thus, although the colonial West is indeed the main culprit in maintaining Israel’s regime of colonial oppression, addressing its context particularities is not always the movement’s top priority. Those in the West are clearly a very important constituency that the BDS movement, including PACBI, has always engaged, precisely because the complicity of western states, corporations, and institutions is the lifeline of Israeli apartheid and settler-colonialism. But it is becoming increasingly critical to fortify Arab resistance to normalization as this takes on more relative weight in the movement’s global struggle, in this exceptional moment. This point is absolutely critical and we urge allies to carefully consider it.

Israel, with unprecedented US and European support, is perpetrating the world’s first livestreamed genocide, including planned ethnic cleansing. In parallel, the Netanyahu-Trump fascist camp is feverishly trying to normalize these atrocity crimes with many tools, including by advocating for both with outrageous honesty. Their strategy to whitewash the genocide and maintain Israel’s “total impunity,” as even the UN Secretary-General calls it, includes a massive campaign of bullying, intimidation and open threats to force authoritarian, unelected Arab regimes, especially in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Libya, to join other Arab regimes in the so-called Abraham Accords of military-security alliances and normalization with Israel. This poses an existential threat to the liberation struggle of the Indigenous people of Palestine, particularly as it comes during this unspeakable genocide and the massive destruction and ethnic cleansing of refugee camps in the West Bank, the latter being aided by the so-called “security coordination” with the unelected, authoritarian Palestinian Authority leadership.

In the current Trumpian moment, with the massive push for normalizing genocidal Israel’s relations with corrupt Arab dictatorships, fighting normalization from below gains unparalleled importance as an existential need in our struggle for Palestinian rights. From a US/Western-centric viewpoint, our criticism of No Other Land’s normalization dimension may seem counterproductive. But taking the global picture into account, and particularly the specific Arab context in this moment, this harm is significantly outweighed by the benefit our struggle gains from protecting ourselves in the Arab region from extremely well-funded and aggressive normalization from below that is designed to buttress normalization from above, by despotic regimes who have no democratic mandate.

PACBI’s position came also in response to some voices in the Arab world ignoring the normalization and, in some instances, even justifying it, in a dangerous indicator of the insidious nature of normalization, almost entirely funded by western organizations and promoted by Arab dictatorships. This only reinforced PACBI’s view that going public was essential following the Oscars.

Given this overarching existential concern, fighting normalization from below in the Arab region now, at the grassroots, cultural, academic, civil society levels, gains enormous importance and weight for the BDS movement, even more than before.

This is an important critique that PACBI appreciates. Indeed, the BDS movement has called for broad intersectional coalitions as a necessity in fighting all forms of oppression, particularly in these difficult times of rising fascism, white supremacy, and systemic racism. Controversy like the one raised around this film and PACBI’s criticism of it provides an opportunity to discuss PACBI's work globally, broaden understanding around normalization in the cultural space, and engage in constructive dialog with our partners on strategic priorities in various contexts.

Based on its over two decades of experience in building the academic, cultural and sports boycott as an indispensable and crucial part of BDS solidarity globally, PACBI assessed that through constructive and honest engagement with allies and partners in the solidarity movement in the West, we can shed light on the dimensions that they have omitted in their critiques, and even where disagreements still remain, we can maintain the broader agreement on much of the rest of the solidarity work and its priorities. Trust plays an important role in this dialog, and so does the readiness of all to intently listen, learn, and allow for evolving their respective positions. This FAQ is a part of this process, and we hope that shedding light on the complex politics of normalization and the multiple audiences that PACBI must address and consider will help to solidify this trust.

Moving forward, the BDS movement, including PACBI, will continue to build people power through broad intersectional coalitions, among others, to further isolate and eventually dismantle Israel’s genocidal regime of settler-colonial apartheid.

Masafer Yatta is indeed facing a cruel campaign of gradual ethnic cleansing waged by the illegal Israeli occupation and colonial settlers, and it therefore needs all the solidarity it and many similar villages like it can get. But how do we assess the participation of Jewish-Israeli activists in this or any other Palestinian-led struggle for our rights?

It is no coincidence that the BDS Call of 2005, signed by the coalition of all Palestinian political parties, as well as by trade unions and the absolute majority of grassroots and civil society entities, has explicitly invited “conscientious Israelis to support this Call, for the sake of justice and genuine peace.” Anti-Zionist Israelis who recognize the comprehensive rights of the Palestinian people, especially the right of refugees to return and receive reparations as stipulated in international law, and who wish to co-resist with us to end Israel’s system of colonial oppression are our partners in this struggle. Our Israeli BDS partner, Boycott from Within, is an inspiring example of ethical co-resistance to oppression. In contrast, Standing Together is a blatant example of insidious normalization outfits that strive to promote unethical “coexistence” under oppression. BDS, after all, targets complicity, not identity. As stated in the BDS movement’s anti-normalization guidelines:

“As in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, Israeli colonial settlers who wish to join the Indigenous-led struggle to end oppression must disassociate from Israel’s regime of settler-colonialism and apartheid and shed their colonial privileges. This begins with members of the colonial community’s public endorsement of, at a minimum, the UN-stipulated rights of the colonized people, thus recognizing that the colonized are full humans who deserve their full set of human rights (including social, political and cultural rights). Only then can members of the colonial community begin to engage with Indigenous people in real co-resistance activities rather than perpetuate a normalization of colonial violence.”

Even if the joint co-resistance project focuses on some, not all, aspects of ending the system of colonial oppression, the condition of recognizing our comprehensive rights is not negotiable.

Masafer Yatta in particular has become a focal point for anti-Zionist and international solidarity groups. However, it also became an entry point for “liberal Zionist” anti-occupation Israeli activists, given the privileges granted to Israelis in contrast to the severe movement restrictions imposed on Palestinians and internationals by the Israeli regime. Over the years, normalization projects — alongside clearer patterns of exploitation of communities in Masafer Yatta — have come to our attention. Most of the Israeli so-called “Zionist left” deal with their guilt and whitewash their ongoing investment in and support for Israel’s regime of settler-colonialism and apartheid by standing with small Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank resisting the occupation. But the same activists would not stand with the struggle to end Israel’s genocide against 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza, with many of them trying to both-sides it or even whitewash it.

And of course the absolute majority of the Israeli “Zionist left” prefer to focus on “the occupation” in the West Bank and pre-genocide Gaza, which they see as Israel’s only fault, than to touch the root causes of this colonial “conflict” — Israel’s regime of settler colonialism and apartheid since the 1948 Nakba.

This is precisely why the BDS movement, having deprived the Israeli Zionist “left” of its gatekeeping role, which they gained throughout the Oslo process that literally cemented Israel’s colonial rule, has defined normalization in very clear terms set by entities representing the absolute Palestinian majority. Israelis who refuse to recognize our comprehensive rights under international law must first shed their racism and colonialism to be true allies in this anti-colonial struggle. This was one of the many lessons we have learned from the South African liberation struggle.

We note here that even long-standing partners and allies in the West are not immune to the racial privilege of being white or in proximity to whiteness, which can prevent them from seeing other contexts or even result in them adopting a gatekeeper role, regardless of intentions. Beyond a critique of whiteness, a Western-centric attitude can also sometimes hamper a full appreciation of the issues surrounding normalization in particular. One can present a strong critique of our work, or the work of any oppressed people struggling to end oppression, while recognizing and taking into account their positionality, never to censor themselves, but to ensure that their critique is as ethical as possible, and therefore as constructive as possible.

The BNC is the absolute largest, most inclusive Palestinian coalition. It is representative, authoritative and reaches its decisions based on the notion of tawafuq, or accord, which means all entities represented agree to ultimately accept the decision, even if it does not fully align with their opinions. The BDS guidelines are dynamically developed over a fairly long period of time through a thoroughly participatory and expansive process that engages Palestinian communities everywhere, as much as feasible. The anti-normalization guidelines, specifically, went through many intensive discussions and deliberations in Palestine and with Palestinian communities in exile and have been subjected to much debate ever since. They have withstood the test of time, impact, and relevance.

Being consensus-based, the guidelines are ethically consistent, principled, effective, goal-oriented, and as objective as they can be. They never reflect the ideological or political views of this or that Palestinian entity, and they are applied consistently and as professionally as possible. This is why they have for many years commanded the wide respect not just of the absolute majority of Palestinians, but also of the solidarity networks globally.

The BDS guidelines evolve based on qualitative changes in reality, with some guidelines evolving much faster than others in order to better serve Palestinian popular resistance and the BDS movement’s struggle to end international complicity and advance support for Palestinian rights. To give another example, the process to develop the specific BDS guidelines that apply to Palestinian citizens of present-day Israel lasted close to three years, with inclusive and democratically-run community workshops being held in many localities in the 1948 region. Representatives of almost all political parties, grassroots networks and activist groups participated in that process that included critiques, debates, and exchanges also from partners around the world.

No. The BDS movement, including PACBI, has consistently targeted institutions, not individuals. It is crucial, however, to distinguish between anti-normalization work and “targeting individuals.” The BDS anti-normalization guidelines have always made that distinction clear. They say:

The BDS movement calls for boycotts of activities, events and projects which legitimize or otherwise enable Israel’s regime of apartheid, settler colonialism and occupation. It does not call for or condone boycotts of individuals because of their Israeli or Jewish origin or identity. In other words, BDS targets complicity, not identity.

With regard to anti-normalization, our work is based on the principle that this struggle is an Arab struggle and not merely a Palestinian one. In fact, the people of Palestine have for centuries been historically, culturally, linguistically, and otherwise an integral part of the Arab world – one that Western colonialism carved up into artificial states in the 20th century. Apartheid Israel has worked hard for decades, and especially through the Oslo Accords years, to reduce this struggle into a “Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” to split Arab public opinion, to detach Palestine from its Arab context, and ultimately, to even exclude Palestinians in exile from the very definition of the Palestinian people.

However, Israel has largely failed to sever Palestine from the Arab world, as far as Arab peoples’ commitments go (Israel’s recent normalization agreements with several Arab dictatorships and authoritarian regimes notwithstanding). Egypt is the best example of this. Since the Camp David “peace” accords between the Egyptian regime and apartheid Israel was signed in 1978, the almost absolute consensus among the Egyptian people and civil society has remained supportive of Palestinian liberation and strongly opposed to normalization with Israel.

In light of the above, when an Arab individual and an Israeli individual collaborate or participate in joint events or projects, they do so as “representatives” of their states rather than as private individuals. In such instances, both the Arab and the Israeli are viewed by their compatriots as well as others globally, as representing their flags, regardless of what the individuals may think or want.

Thus, ensuring that joint projects and activities between Arabs and Israelis do not undermine the principle that the struggle for the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights is an Arab struggle is certainly not the same as a boycott of Israeli individuals because of their Israeli identity. Indeed, the BNC has never called for or condoned the latter. What anti-normalization principles reject are attempts to represent Israel alongside Arab countries as if it were a normal part of the region, not a settler-colonial and apartheid state. This stance emerges from the particular context of this struggle and the centuries-old intimate relationship between Palestinians and other Arab peoples of the region.

Countering normalization is all about providing ethical and political guidance to joint activities/projects between Arabs — including Palestinians — and Israeli individuals and groups, in order to protect our struggle. It ensures that such joint activities are not used to normalize oppression but rather contribute to the Palestinian-led struggle to end it.