Pro-Palestinian Israeli Director’s Oscar Speech Faces Backlash—from Palestinian Activists

Yuval Abraham’s attempt to align with pro-Palestinian activists revealed the movement’s rigid demands for ideological purity.

The 2024 Academy Awards saw No Other Land, a documentary co-directed by Israeli filmmaker Yuval Abraham and Palestinian journalist Basel Adra, win the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. The film, which explores the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a focus on the Palestinian viewpoint in the West Bank, has been touted as a groundbreaking collaboration between Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers. However, while some expected the Oscar win and Abraham’s acceptance speech to be widely celebrated among pro-Palestinian advocates, the reaction from certain commentators has been sharply critical, highlighting ideological divisions and a deep-seated rigidity within the pro-Palestinian arena.

Abraham’s Hollow Gesture and the Expected Backlash

During his acceptance speech, Abraham took the stage alongside Adra and delivered a predictable critique of Israeli policies, presenting himself as a self-flagellating figure who acknowledges his own supposed privileges while lamenting Palestinian suffering. "I am free under civilian law; Basel is under military law that destroys his life," Abraham declared, making sweeping statements about "ethnic supremacy" and calling for equal national rights for both Israelis and Palestinians. While his speech strongly condemned Israel, it also attempted to strike a balance of solidarity, a move that was unlikely to satisfy either side.

Despite his overt criticism of Israel and efforts to align himself with Palestinian grievances, many pro-Palestinian commentators still found reasons to attack him, claiming his speech was too centered on his own Israeli perspective. Critics argued that, rather than fully amplifying Palestinian suffering, he framed the issue in a way that still left space for his own identity, rendering his activism insufficient in their eyes. His speech, intended to appease the very people who often decry any Israeli involvement, ultimately failed to meet the standards of ideological purity demanded by the movement.

Extremist Criticism from Pro-Palestinian Circles

One of the strongest reactions came from American Islamic College professor Shabana Mir, who posted: "Yuval Abraham's Oscar acceptance speech was annoying as f***. After 16 months of genocide, I've had it with Zionist-centric talk re: Palestinians... Basel’s people are being ethnically cleansed, not yours." Others echoed similar sentiments, accusing Abraham of making the moment about himself rather than exclusively focusing on the plight of Palestinians.

Perhaps the most extreme critique came from the anonymous social media account "zei_squirrel," a frequent purveyor of conspiracy-laden narratives and anti-Israel rhetoric. The account accused Abraham of being a "liberal Zionist" who "spread genocidal atrocity propaganda," a reference to his acknowledgment of Hamas’s documented atrocities on October 7th. The post falsely claimed that Abraham "called for genociding Gaza" by stating that Hamas must be defeated, completely ignoring the reality that Hamas is an internationally recognized terrorist organization responsible for deadly attacks on civilians.

The post also accused Abraham of "hijacking the moment" to equate Israeli hostages held by Hamas with Palestinian prisoners, dismissing the very real suffering of those kidnapped on October 7. This attempt to paint Abraham as a “Zionist agent” rather than an ally of the Palestinian cause exemplifies the toxic and self-defeating purity tests imposed by extremist voices within the pro-Palestinian movement.

Zei_squirrel’s post also sought to discredit Abraham based on his work with +972 Magazine, a publication with a strong anti-Israel bias that consistently frames Israel in a negative light while downplaying Palestinian extremism. The post even smeared +972 founder Lisa Goldman, accusing her of fabricating evidence regarding Hamas atrocities—an unfounded claim aimed at discrediting reporting on Hamas’s crimes rather than engaging in serious discourse about the conflict.

The Pro-Palestinian Movement’s Rigid Orthodoxy

This reaction underscores a paradox within certain factions of the pro-Palestinian movement. Abraham, an Israeli filmmaker who has consistently criticized Israeli government policies and actively worked with Palestinians to document human rights abuses, was not embraced as an ally but rather castigated for not perfectly aligning with a specific ideological narrative. The hostility toward his speech suggests that, for some, no expression of support is ever sufficient unless it mirrors their exact viewpoint.

Another source of contention was Abraham’s past condemnations of Hamas’s attacks on Israeli civilians during the October 7 massacres. Some commentators argued that his acknowledgment of these attacks—even though they are well-documented—was problematic, accusing him of perpetuating "both-sidesism." This response reveals a troubling hypocrisy within parts of the movement: while these commentators call for unrestricted Palestinian voices, they simultaneously seek to silence any discourse that acknowledges Israeli suffering or diverges from their strictly curated rhetoric.

A Movement Focused on Purity, Not Progress

The criticism of Abraham also reflects a broader challenge within the pro-Palestinian movement—its deep-seated intolerance toward any voice that does not fully conform to its rigid, anti-Israel orthodoxy. By alienating figures like Abraham, who have devoted their platforms to criticizing Israel and amplifying Palestinian narratives, these activists demonstrate that their movement is more concerned with ideological purity than with building meaningful alliances for change. Instead of fostering unity and leveraging allies who could help bring attention to their cause, they aggressively purge anyone who dares to deviate even slightly from their prescribed anti-Israel narrative.

Furthermore, the backlash suggests an outright rejection of even the most overtly pro-Palestinian voices from within Israeli society. If an Israeli filmmaker who has spent years spreading Palestinian narratives, aligning with Palestinian activists, and vocally opposing Israeli government policies is still deemed unacceptable, it raises serious questions about the movement’s actual goals. Are these critics genuinely seeking progress and justice, or are they merely fixated on enforcing an extreme ideological agenda that leaves no room for nuance or dialogue?

The Bigger Picture

Ultimately, Abraham’s speech was a significant moment on one of the world’s biggest cultural stages. Rather than acknowledging that an Israeli filmmaker used his Oscar-winning platform to denounce his own country’s policies and advocate for Palestinian rights, critics chose to attack him for not going far enough in their eyes. This reaction underscores how the pro-Palestinian movement is less about advocating for Palestinian rights and instead focuses on perpetuating an uncompromising, one-sided hostility toward Israel, where any deviation from complete condemnation is met with rejection.

For a movement that seemingly calls for inclusion and recognition, it would do well to practice the same tolerance it demands from others. If solidarity is only accepted when it is absolute and unconditional, then is it really even solidarity at all?