[News] ‘Justice Means Accountability: Hind Rajab’ Director Rejects Berlin Award

[Anti-Imperialist News]

palestinechronicle.com
<https://www.palestinechronicle.com/justice-means-accountability-hind-rajab-director-rejects-berlin-award-with-a-powerful-speech/>
‘Justice Means Accountability: Hind Rajab’ Director Rejects Berlin
AwardFebruary
19, 2026
------------------------------

*By Palestine Chronicle Staff
<https://www.palestinechronicle.com/writers/palestine-chronicle-staff>*

It quickly became clear that Tunisian filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania was no
ordinary artist — a realization that unsettled Berlin when she refused the
prize.

Key Takeaways

   - Kaouther Ben Hania rejected a Cinema for Peace award, calling Hind
   Rajab’s killing part of genocide.
   - The refusal followed the honoring of a retired Israeli general at the
   same event.
   - More than 80 filmmakers condemned the festival’s silence on Gaza.
   - Arundhati Roy withdrew, rejecting claims that art should remain
   apolitical.
   - Berlin became a cultural battleground over accountability and genocide.

The Moment the Ceremony Broke

The applause began normally.

Guests at the Cinema for Peace gala in Berlin expected the ritual
choreography of awards season — a speech of gratitude, a photograph, polite
applause. Tunisian filmmaker Kaouther Ben Hania stepped onto the stage to
receive the organization’s “Most Valuable Film” prize for The Voice of Hind
Rajab.

Instead, she paused, holding the statue as if weighing it.

“I feel responsibility more than gratitude,” she told the audience.

Her film reconstructs the final hours of six-year-old Palestinian child
Hind Rajab, killed in Gaza alongside members of her family and two
paramedics who attempted to rescue her. For Ben Hania, the award could not
exist apart from that reality.

“What happened to Hind is not an exception. It is part of a genocide,” she
said.

Then came the sentence that transformed the ceremony into a confrontation.

“Peace is not a perfume sprayed over violence so power can feel refined and
comfortable. And cinema is not image-laundering.”

She explained that language portraying mass civilian death as tragedy,
complexity, or unfortunate consequence was itself political cover.

“In Berlin tonight there are people who gave political cover to that
genocide by reframing the mass killing of civilians as self-defense, as
complex circumstances, and by denigrating those who protest.”

The hall — filled with diplomats, filmmakers and celebrities — had been
prepared for celebration. Instead, it was forced into witness.

“The Israeli army killed Hind Rajab,” she continued. “Killed her family.
Killed the two paramedics who came to save her — with the complicity of the
world’s most powerful governments and institutions.”

She did not accept the award.

“I refuse to let their deaths become a backdrop for a polite speech about
peace.”

She placed the statue on stage.

“So tonight, I will not take this award home. I leave it here as a
reminder.”

The Story Behind the Refusal

The decision was not spontaneous outrage but a response to the ceremony’s
structure. The same event honored retired Israeli general Noam Tibon for
his appearance in a documentary recounting his rescue of relatives during
the October 7 attacks.

Ben Hania viewed the juxtaposition as moral symmetry imposed onto radically
unequal violence.

She warned that presenting such narratives under the banner of
reconciliation risks erasing responsibility.

“Justice means accountability,” she said. “Without accountability, there is
no peace.”

She made clear the refusal was conditional, not symbolic.

“When peace is pursued as a legal and moral obligation rooted in
accountability for genocide, then I will come back and accept it with joy.”

The statue remained where she left it — a physical contradiction:
recognition rejected because recognition itself was the problem.

Observers noted that the gala, hosted by musician Bob Geldof and attended
by figures including Hillary Clinton and Kevin Spacey, suddenly shifted
from celebration to moral tribunal. The award ceased to represent artistic
prestige and became evidence.
A Festival Already Under Pressure

The confrontation did not occur in isolation. For days, tension had been
building inside the Berlin International Film Festival.

More than 80 filmmakers and actors — among them Javier Bardem, Tilda
Swinton, and Adam McKay — signed an open letter accusing the festival of
“institutional silence” on Gaza. Organized by Film Workers for Palestine,
the statement argued that Berlin historically positioned itself as a
political festival yet avoided clear language regarding Palestinian deaths.

They wrote the festival had shown clarity regarding Ukraine and Iran, but
now adopted ambiguity where moral clarity was demanded.

The controversy intensified after jury president Wim Wenders argued cinema
should remain separate from politics.

“If we make films purely political, we enter politics. We represent a
counterweight to politics,” he said.

Indian novelist Arundhati Roy withdrew in response, calling the position
astonishing.

“Hearing them say art should not be political while a crime against
humanity unfolds before our eyes is shocking,” she said, adding artists
must “do everything possible to stop it.”

The dispute moved from artistic theory to institutional legitimacy: whether
neutrality itself constitutes a political stance.

Festival director Tricia Tuttle defended the principle that artists possess
both “the right to speak and the right to remain silent.” Critics replied
that a platform claiming moral history cannot suddenly become apolitical.
The Death of ‘Neutrality’

Ben Hania’s speech sharpened the abstract debate into a concrete
accusation. She argued that narratives of balance risk sanitizing violence.

“The Israeli army killed Hind Rajab, and as long as the structures that
enabled that remain untouched, I cannot celebrate,” she said.

Her film reconstructs recorded calls between the child and emergency
responders — material that already circulated globally as documentation of
civilian death. For the director, the story cannot be aestheticized.

“Cinema is not a place to wash images clean,” she said. “It cannot become
decoration.”

The language echoed beyond the hall. Journalists described the gala as the
moment the festival’s internal argument became unavoidable. What had been
panel discussions and statements turned into a visible rupture: an award
nobody could applaud comfortably.

Outside theaters, protesters held signs demanding acknowledgment of
genocide. Inside, audiences watched films about oppression in other
contexts. The contrast became central to the controversy.

How, critics asked, could cinema condemn injustice everywhere except where
political risk is highest?
After the Applause

In the days following, coverage of the festival increasingly centered not
on competition films but on the abandoned trophy.

For some attendees, the act represented the politicization of art. For
others, refusal itself was an artistic expression.

Ben Hania framed it differently: not activism but ethical continuity.
“Justice means accountability. Without accountability, there is no peace,”
she repeated.

Her position suggested the question was not whether art should be
political, but whether art could avoid politics while depicting violence.

The empty pedestal became symbolic precisely because it was not dramatic —
no shouting, no disruption. Only absence. By leaving the award, she
transformed recognition into testimony. The object became a reminder rather
than a reward.

Late in her speech, she summarized the logic guiding the refusal:

“I will not take this award home. I leave it here as a reminder. When peace
is pursued as a legal and moral obligation — rooted in accountability for
genocide — I will return and accept it with joy.”

When the gala ended, the ceremony resumed its schedule. Guests left.
Cameras turned elsewhere. But the argument did not end with the evening.

Berlin 2026 became less about cinema’s aesthetics than its conscience:
whether cultural institutions can maintain authority while avoiding naming
state violence, genocide. The debate now extended beyond the festival into
broader questions about Western cultural spaces and political
responsibility.

The abandoned trophy lingered as a physical metaphor — art recognized yet
unable to celebrate itself.

The lights dimmed, screenings continued, and the red carpet rolled on.

But the object stayed behind, carrying the meaning the ceremony could not
contain.

And long after the applause faded, the reminder remained.

*(Al-Mayadeen, Al-Arabi, Hollywood Reporter, AJA, PC)*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20260219/282a5af4/attachment-0001.htm>