In the past few days, some Jews have praised the recent Academy Award-winner Adrien Brody for mentioning anti-Semitism in his acceptance speech, while others pointed out that that Brody couldn’t utter the word without immediately following it up with mention of racism and “othering.” Some Israelis were pleased that No Other Land, the joint effort of Israeli and Palestinian filmmakers, won an Oscar for best documentary; other Israelis were disgusted because it is an anti-Israel film.

Most interesting was the dispute among those who hate Israel: between those who were horrified that the film’s Israeli codirector, Yuval Abraham, mentioned the plight of the hostages in his acceptance speech, and those who thought the anti-Israel movement should look generously on Israelis who labor to portray their country as evil. Some in the first camp weren’t happy that Palestinian filmmakers collaborated with the “Zionist” Abraham in the first place. Some in the second camp seemed shocked to discover that the pro-Palestinian movement isn’t about liberation or human rights, but hatred and bigotry,

More about the documentary in a moment. But I’d like to say something about the complaint I found least appealing: that Jewish honorees didn’t use their platform to condemn anti-Semitism or plea for the release of the hostages. Who cares? Would Hamas reconsider its negotiating position after a bold declaration from Meryl Streep? Why encourage celebrities to indulge their penchant for grandstanding, or accept them as moral authorities, especially when they rarely show much political wisdom? Unless they are willing to display the sort of courage demonstrated by the Jerry Seinfeld, I’m not interested.

In any case, Peter Himmelman knows more about show business than I do, and has some thoughts on both the ceremony and No Other Land:

No Other Land gives you the tragedy from one point of view. It shows you soldiers with guns, but not the attacks that made them come. It shows you children crying, but not the Israeli children who have been massacred. It doesn’t tell you why Israel must take these actions—just that they happen. And that’s the trick, isn’t it? You take something rooted in decades of war and rejectionism and terrorism, and you strip it down to one story, one image, so that by the time the credits roll, you don’t see history—you see a villain. And in No Other Land, that villain is always Israel.

I watched as actors and artists paraded down the red carpet, pinning little red hand symbols onto their designer suits, patting themselves on the back for their moral clarity. . . . That symbol isn’t just some vague call for peace. It references the blood-soaked hands raised in triumph by a Palestinian lynch mob in 2000, after they tore two Israeli reservists to pieces in Ramallah.

To Himmelman, the posturing of the red-pin wearers is just a way of saying, “See, we are not the oppressor class. We’re the good guys. Please, love us!” As for everyone else:

The jubilant roar of the Oscar crowd after No Other Land won best documentary wasn’t just applause—it was a statement. A tacit or overt declaration that Israel is the villain. That Hamas—the group that throws gay men off rooftops, that burns families alive, that rapes women and kidnaps babies—is somehow the underdog. That 1,200 Jewish lives don’t matter as much as maintaining their carefully curated image.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.