Anh-Linh Ngo's speech on No Other Land

On November 12^th, the Akademie der Künste showed the film No Other Land, Winner of Documentary Award and Panorama Audience Award of the Berlinale 2024. Followed by a talk with the filmmakers.
Anh-Linh Ngo, Vice-President of the Akademie der Künste, opened the sold-out screening with the following welcoming address.

Dear members of the Akademie der Künste,
dear Helke Misselwitz,
ladies and gentlemen,

I warmly welcome you to the preview of No Other Land, a documentary by Yuval Abraham, Basel Adra, Hamdan Ballal, and Rachel Szor, here at the Akademie der Künste. My name is Anh-Linh Ngo, and as Vice President of the Academy, I have had the honor of giving many speeches in my first five months in office. Today’s words, however, are particularly challenging, as they address a topic that has deeply impacted our societies. Please allow me to take a few extra moments to provide some context for this screening.

No Other Land is a collaboration by an Israeli-Palestinian collective and premiered at Berlinale 2024, where it won both the Berlinale Documentary Award and the Panorama Audience Award. One of the jurors was Thomas Heise, our esteemed member of the Akademie der Künste who passed away unexpectedly in May. He believed in letting documents speak for themselves and used to say, "Truth is concrete," a guiding principle in his art and life.

Truth is a profound concept. Truth and truthfulness differ from mere facts. To approach truth, we must question our own standpoint, allowing other perspectives, experiences, and emotions to come forward. And yet, our perceptions are shaped by our own biases, our political and economic contexts, and cultural affiliations.

In other words, we must adopt different "viewpoints" to approach truth. In German, this term, “Sehepunkte”, is unusual and was introduced by historian Johann Chladni in the 18^th century, to highlight the necessity of viewing historical events from multiple perspectives. For instance, a rebellion appears differently to a loyal subject than to a rebel, it means also something different to a city dweller than to a peasant. In this sense, what we will see tonight is but one “viewpoint” of a complex reality.

Acknowledging our biases is the foundation of open dialogue—and it is this openness that Manos Tsangaris and I hope to foster at the Academy: spaces for the exchange of diverse perspectives. We want to dismantle rigid divisions and create room for meaningful dialogue in times often marked by polarization.

Which brings me to the controversy sparked when, at the Berlinale Gala, Yuval Abraham used the term “apartheid” to describe the drastically different living conditions he and Basel Adra experience as Israeli and Palestinian citizens, despite living only 30 kilometers apart. This statement drew condemnation from politicians and media, who labeled it anti-Semitic.

Whether his choice of words was wise in the tense climate following the horrible Hamas attacks just a few months earlier is up for debate. Even Yuval Abraham himself reflected on this in an interview with Haaretz: “I know there’s a lot of criticism of the things that were said, and that’s okay—I encourage criticism. From my perspective, it’s legitimate that people voice criticism, and as a rule, I’m someone who listens to criticism. But to call a speech by an Israeli filmmaker anti-Semitic is crazy.”

Thomas Heise did not perceive the Berlinale event as anti-Semitic, though he respected others’ differing opinions. He remarked in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung that the subsequent media frenzy misinterpreted friendly applause as endorsement of anti-Israel sentiment. But to him, it was not.

The response to the Berlinale awards shocked Thomas Heise, who, like Yuval Abraham, is a descendant of Holocaust survivors. Tonight’s screening honors his wish to let the film speak for itself. In his jury statement, Heise emphasized the core of documentary film: "To bear witness, with responsibility and precision, is the foundation of every documentary film."

This is why the Akademie der Künste chose to show No Other Land—in a time, where right- and left-wing populists exploit fears to divide us. Because polarized communities are easier to manipulate. In polarized communities, it is no longer about reasonable discussion or seeing from different “viewpoints”; it becomes a matter of taking sides, asserting one’s rightness, and silencing the other. My heartfelt plea is this: let us protect this free space of art. Let us not misuse it for political ends—for then, even this refuge would be lost.

The Akademie der Künste does not present No Other Land to fuel anti-Israel sentiment, let alone anti-Semitism. The Academy has consistently condemned this hatred, as reflected in our clear denunciation of the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, with a call for a ban on any support for Hamas in Germany. Our stance is shaped by a history where, under Nazi rule, 41 members of the Academy were expelled for political and anti-Semitic reasons. The Akademie der Künste will continue to oppose anti-Semitism, racism, and hatred and to protect the diversity of voices, including those of our many Jewish members who are criticizing the politics of the Israeli government, but also those who disagree.

As a society of artists, we believe that art has a unique ability to reveal moments of truthfulness through the portrayal of reality, pain, conflict, and vulnerability. Such moments of truthfulness enable us to connect as humans, to overcome traumas, and to envision a shared future. Without this hope, there would be no art.

We also present No Other Land because we believe that art embodies something vital: “ambiguity tolerance” —a concept introduced by Jewish-American psychologist Else Frenkel-Brunswik. It describes the ability to recognize both positive and negative attributes in the same object.

“Ambiguity tolerance” could be foundational for open discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It allows us to affirm that Zionism, after millennia of Jewish persecution, was an emancipatory movement, while also acknowledging that its realization has created injustices. Both aspects are true.

In a time demanding unambiguity, when friend-enemy thinking grows, art can teach us ambiguity tolerance. I urge you to keep this in mind as we watch this powerful film. It may evoke strong emotions, but it is not meant to polarize. Why? Because beyond all the violence and injustice portrayed, the film tells the story of an unlikely friendship between Basel Adra and Yuval Abraham, a bond that transcends political conflict. It is this deeper level which gives the film its artistic merit: the portrayal of friendship amidst despair, illustrating the courage of nonviolent resistance, of rebuilding together what was destroyed, again and again.

This critique of the political situation should not be misinterpreted as a denial of Israel’s right to exist; rather, it is a contribution to securing the future of a homeland for the Jewish people—a future that can only coexist with an equitable right for the Palestinian people.

Criticism is not mere negation; it is fueled by hope for a better future. Why else would one make the effort to critique? It is in this sense, that I wish the film every success to bring about the necessary political change—especially the change that can only occur from within the Israeli and Palestinian societies through the realization that reconciliation is essential for peaceful coexistence.

In closing, I ask you to refrain from disruptions, to respect the film as a work of art, and to honor the efforts of its creators who showed tremendous courage in making this film. After the film, Yuval Abraham and Basel Adra will join us digitally for a discussion moderated by Hanno Hauenstein.

You and the audiences around the world have a special responsibility: you hold the power to ensure this film is seen and the filmmakers heard. Please, let us uphold a respectful discourse.

Thank you.