Hamdan Ballal, the Palestinian co-director of the Oscar-winning documentary “No Other Land,” became the subject of international attention following an attack by Israeli settlers in the occupied West Bank shortly after receiving the prestigious award 1. “No Other Land” poignantly portrays the struggles of Palestinians residing in Masafer Yatta as they resist the demolition of their villages 1. The assault on Ballal and his subsequent detention by the Israeli military sparked widespread condemnation, particularly due to the initial muted response from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the very organization that had recently honored his work 2. This silence was eventually broken by a formal apology from the Academy following significant pressure from its members 2. The timing of the attack, occurring so soon after the Oscar ceremony, strongly suggests a connection between Ballal’s acclaimed filmmaking and the violence he endured. His co-director, Basel Adra, explicitly stated that this could be retaliation for creating the film, raising serious concerns about the safety of artists who engage with politically sensitive subjects 1. Furthermore, the Academy’s initial reluctance to directly address the attack on Ballal by name hints at a potential hesitation to take a definitive stance on politically charged events. Their first communication on the matter offered a general condemnation of harm to artists without specifically mentioning Ballal 2. This approach could stem from a desire to maintain neutrality or avoid becoming embroiled in contentious political issues.
The attack on Hamdan Ballal occurred on Monday, March 24, 2025, in the village of Susiya, situated in the occupied West Bank 1. According to eyewitness accounts, approximately two dozen Israeli settlers, some wearing masks and carrying weapons, descended upon the village shortly after the residents had finished their Ramadan fast 1. Basel Adra, Ballal’s fellow co-director, recounted that a settler, whom he identified as a frequent aggressor in the area, approached Ballal’s home accompanied by Israeli military personnel. Soldiers present at the scene reportedly fired shots into the air 1. Ballal’s wife, inside the house, heard her husband being violently assaulted outside and cry out in distress 1. Adra himself witnessed soldiers leading Ballal away from his home. Ballal was handcuffed and blindfolded as he was escorted into a military vehicle. Adra further reported seeing Ballal’s blood on the ground outside his front door 1. This account was corroborated by another eyewitness who wished to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal 1. In a contrasting narrative, the Israeli military stated that they had detained three Palestinians on suspicion of throwing rocks at their forces, along with one Israeli civilian involved in what they termed a “violent confrontation” between Israelis and Palestinians. However, this claim was disputed by the witnesses interviewed by the Associated Press 1. The military indicated that the detainees were transferred to Israeli police for questioning and that an Israeli citizen received medical treatment 1. Ultimately, Ballal and two other Palestinians were held overnight before being released on bail 2. Following his release, Ballal recounted the ordeal, stating that he was beaten by both settlers and soldiers, including being kicked in the head and threatened with firearms 4. He sustained injuries to his head and stomach, and was visibly bruised on his face 4. The differing accounts from the military and the eyewitnesses underscore the deeply contested narratives surrounding events in the West Bank. The Associated Press specifically noted that witnesses contradicted the military’s version of events 1, highlighting the need for careful consideration of various perspectives when reporting on such incidents. Furthermore, Ballal’s personal testimony that his attackers mentioned “Oscar” and his name strongly suggests that he was specifically targeted due to his success as a filmmaker and his Palestinian identity 5. This indicates that the attack was likely not a random act of violence but potentially motivated by the film’s content and its recognition on a global stage.
The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences initially remained silent on the attack, unlike numerous other prominent filmmaker organizations 2. Their first public response came in the form of a letter sent to its members. This letter broadly condemned “harming or suppressing artists for their work or their viewpoints” but notably omitted any mention of Hamdan Ballal or his film, “No Other Land” 2. This initial response was met with swift and significant criticism from within the Academy’s own membership 2. Over 600 Academy members, including prominent figures such as Joaquin Phoenix, Penelope Cruz, Richard Gere, Mark Ruffalo, Riz Ahmed, Ava DuVernay, and Alfonso Cuaron, issued their own statement expressing support for Ballal 2. This statement directly condemned the “brutal assault and unlawful detention of Oscar-winning Palestinian filmmaker Hamdan Ballal by settlers and Israeli forces in the West Bank” 2. The signatories characterized the Academy leadership’s initial response as falling “far short of the sentiments this moment calls for” and deemed it “indefensible” for the Academy to recognize a film with an award and then fail to defend its filmmakers shortly thereafter 2. Yuval Abraham, the Israeli co-director of “No Other Land,” also voiced strong criticism of the Academy’s initial silence, comparing it to “silence on Hamdan’s assault” 2. He further revealed that the Academy had informed them that they felt no obligation to respond specifically to Ballal’s attack because other Palestinians were also assaulted during the same incident, suggesting a dismissal of the fact that an internationally recognized, Oscar-winning filmmaker was targeted 2. The considerable number of Academy members who publicly criticized the initial response highlights a strong internal belief that the Academy has a responsibility to actively defend artists facing persecution, especially those whose work has been honored by the institution itself. This suggests a potential evolution in expectations within the film industry regarding the Academy’s role in addressing human rights issues affecting filmmakers. The Academy’s initial generic statement, while generally condemning violence against artists, lacked the specific and direct support that many felt was essential given Ballal’s high profile as an Oscar winner and the violent nature of the attack he endured. This may indicate an internal struggle within the Academy regarding how to balance its identity as an arts organization with the need to address politically charged situations.
Following the intense internal and external pressure, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences issued a subsequent letter, formally apologizing for its earlier statement 2. This apology came after an emergency meeting of the Academy’s board of governors was convened to address the escalating crisis 2. The apology letter, signed by Academy President Janet Yang and CEO Bill Kramer, explicitly stated their regret for failing to directly acknowledge Mr. Ballal and his film, “No Other Land,” by name in their initial response 2. The Academy unequivocally condemned violence of this kind anywhere in the world and affirmed their abhorrence of the suppression of free speech under any circumstances 2. The apology was specifically addressed to Ballal and to all artists who felt unsupported by the Academy’s previous communication 2. The Academy’s eventual apology, while likely welcomed by many, demonstrates that both external and internal pressure can significantly influence the organization’s stance on sensitive global issues. The sequence of events – the attack, the initial muted response, the widespread criticism, and finally the apology – suggests a reactive approach from the Academy rather than a proactive stance in defending its honored artists. The specific language used in the apology, particularly the acknowledgment of their failure to mention Ballal and his film by name, indicates that the Academy recognized the core of the criticism leveled against them – the lack of direct and explicit support for their Oscar-winning filmmaker. This incident may serve as a learning experience for the Academy, highlighting the critical importance of publicly and unequivocally standing by artists who face threats and violence related to their work.
“No Other Land,” the documentary that brought Hamdan Ballal to the Academy Awards stage, meticulously documents the ongoing struggle of residents in the Masafer Yatta region to prevent the Israeli military from demolishing their homes and villages 1. This area in the southern West Bank was designated as a live-fire training zone by the Israeli military in the 1980s, leading to expulsion orders for its predominantly Arab Bedouin inhabitants 1. The film is a collaborative effort, a joint Palestinian-Israeli production co-directed by Hamdan Ballal and Basel Adra, who are Palestinian, and Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, who are Israeli 1. “No Other Land” received the Oscar for best documentary at the most recent Academy Awards ceremony 1. While celebrated internationally and having garnered other awards, the film has also faced criticism in certain quarters 5. The very subject matter of “No Other Land” directly confronts the sensitive and highly contentious Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inherently placing the filmmakers in a potentially vulnerable position to experience backlash. The film’s focus on the displacement of Palestinians likely contributed to the attack on Ballal, underscoring the significant risks involved in creating art that engages with politically charged issues. The fact that “No Other Land” is a joint Israeli-Palestinian production highlights the potential for collaboration and shared understanding even within regions of conflict, adding a layer of complexity to the narrative surrounding the attack. Despite this collaborative effort, it was the Palestinian co-director who was targeted, suggesting that the power dynamics and the associated risks are not equally distributed among the filmmakers.
This incident and the Academy’s subsequent response raise fundamental questions about the organization’s broader role in safeguarding artists and upholding the principles of freedom of expression on a global scale. It also contributes to the ongoing discussions surrounding the Academy’s stance on political and social issues, particularly those concerning Palestine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Academy’s apology could potentially establish a precedent for how the organization will respond to similar incidents involving filmmakers in the future. This event may very well prompt a thorough re-evaluation of the Academy’s existing policies and procedures for addressing threats and attacks directed at filmmakers, especially those whose work tackles controversial and politically sensitive topics. The criticism the Academy faced indicates a clear need for a more robust and timely mechanism for providing support to its members in such challenging situations. Ultimately, this incident underscores the powerful intersection of art, activism, and political conflict. Filmmaking can serve as a potent tool for raising awareness, challenging dominant narratives, and giving voice to marginalized communities, but as this case tragically illustrates, it also carries inherent and significant risks for the creators involved. This reality may lead to broader conversations within the film industry regarding the responsibility of influential institutions like the Academy to actively protect artists who engage in such critical and often dangerous work.
Conclusion:
The attack on Palestinian Oscar winner Hamdan Ballal and the Academy’s initial response underscore the complex interplay between artistic expression, political realities, and the responsibilities of influential cultural institutions. The Academy’s eventual apology signifies a recognition of their initial failure to adequately support an Oscar-winning filmmaker facing violence potentially linked to his work. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the risks faced by artists who engage with politically sensitive topics and highlights the crucial role that organizations like the Academy play in defending artistic freedom and ensuring the safety of their members.
Works cited
- Hamdan Ballal: ‘No Other Land’ co-director detained after attack by …, accessed March 30, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/no-other-land-oscar-israel-palestinians-084c63f33e748a3279646759e9b705c2
- Academy apologizes after stars say it ‘failed to defend’ Palestinian …, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/academy-apologizes-after-stars-say-it-failed-to-defend-palestinian-oscar-winner/
- Academy apologizes after stars say it ‘failed to defend’ Palestinian filmmaker, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/academy-apologizes-after-stars-say-it-failed-to-defend-palestinian-filmmaker/
- Academy apologises for statement on Palestinian Oscar-winner …, accessed March 30, 2025, https://www.thenationalnews.com/arts-culture/film-tv/2025/03/29/hamdan-ballal-attack-oscar-academy-apology/
- Film academy apologizes for not naming ‘No Other Land’ co-director …, accessed March 30, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/no-other-land-oscars-academy-apology-db30e77dd478e7185a925c4d0cfa13fd