Behind the applause for "No Other Land": The questions that went unanswered | Yehuda Rachaniyev

An opinion piece by Yehuda Rachaniyev criticizing the documentary "No Other Land" by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shor. The author argues that the film uses the cinematic medium to create shock and gain international recognition rather than relying on verifiable facts, documents, and open testimonies. According to him, the main flaw is that provocation pushes aside substantive inquiry, and the film demands that the viewer accept claims as established fact without a critical foundation.

An opinion piece by Yehuda Rachaniyev in Maariv, sharply criticizing the documentary "No Other Land" by Yuval Abraham and Rachel Shor. The author argues that the film, which gained international recognition at the Venice Film Festival, uses the cinematic medium to create shock and gain recognition rather than truly confronting reality. Rachaniyev criticizes the lack of factual foundation: the film is not based on documents, evidence, and testimonies from people willing to stand behind their words with open faces, but on anonymous sources. According to him, the main flaw is not the criticism of Israel or the IDF itself, but that provocation pushes aside substantive inquiry. The author states that documentary cinema must provide the viewer with facts and evidence that allow them to think and draw conclusions on their own, and that in the absence of this foundation, what remains is empty provocation.