Abby Martin's documentary contains numerous inaccuracies, but more often it merely contains omissions of relevant facts.

I can't comment on her more recent claims, but don't take them as fact either. We have a 20 year rule in this sub that restricts us from talking about events in the past 20 years.

To start, the first thing she displays following her introduction is a map of "Palestine's shrinking borders". The map has no consistency and no accuracy. The first frame shows private land ownership in the area, and also claims that any bit of state-owned land is by-default Palestinian, even though it was British-controlled by virtue of the British Mandate. The second frame shows "borders" that never existed, by depicting the UN Partition Plan of 1947, which the Jewish leadership accepted and Arab world rejected, which was followed up by a civil war. The plan, while it passed the General Assembly, was nonbinding and never went into effect due to the rejection and subsequent civil war. The third frame shows the lines where the Arab armies and Israeli armies stopped, following the Arab intervention into the civil war in May 1948, and the fourth frame shows land under Palestinian control under the Oslo Agreements, specifically Oslo II. The only problem is, in the third frame, it isn't "Palestinian land", it is land controlled by Jordan in the West Bank and Egypt in Gaza. The first time any Palestinian control exists over any of this land, without anyone else sovereign over them, is in the fourth frame. There's no consistent measurement, between private land, state land, sovereign land, etc.

She notes the distribution of population in the Ottoman Empire, but I'm not sure what date or census she's basing it on. Nevertheless, she then moves to Jerusalem, which is a mistake. She gives the false impression that Jerusalem, as a "center for Arab art", was majority-Arab. Her goal is to conflate Muslims and Christians as "Arab", but leave Jews out of this count, which is misleading. The divisions along those lines did not actually exist in such a fashion, but even if one was to look at it that way, the Ottoman Empire likely saw a majority-Jewish population in Jerusalem in the 1890s-1900s already. She discusses Palestinians as a nation by this point, but there is no clear indication that they formed what we actually associate with nations, i.e. a national movement for self-determination of their own, typically with more or less clear boundaries. This was not the case, and "Palestine" had no definitive borders, though it was viewed as a vague region. She talks about Zionism next, saying that it is the belief in an "exclusively Jewish" state. This is patently false. Zionism believed in a Jewish state, that much is true, and to grant the human right of self-determination to the Jewish people in Israel. However, even Herzl, who advocated for taking unemployed Arabs and giving them work in other areas, leaving the area freer for Jews to form a state, said clearly:

It goes without saying that we shall respectfully tolerate persons of other faiths and protect their property, their honor, and their freedom with the harshest means of coercion. This is another area in which we shall set the entire world a wonderful example … Should there be many such immovable owners in individual areas [who would not sell their property to us], we shall simply leave them there and develop our commerce in the direction of other areas which belong to us.

This is the precise opposite of an "exclusively Jewish" state. She claims Zionists remained a small minority of the Jewish people, but provides no evidence to support this point. Zionism was actually quite popular throughout the world, and there were groups advocating for it even in the Arab world, and it's quite unfair to claim it was an "extremely small minority" among the Jewish population worldwide when there was quite a lot of support for it by the 1920s and 1930s. She discusses the question as if the dichotomy was between mass exodus to "another people's" land, which already de facto gives it to "another people", which would be false. However, even ignoring that this dichotomy was between moving to "another people's" land and staying in their countries to fight it, she ignores that many advocated staying to fight and supported Zionism, as a place for Jews to flee to safety if they ever needed it. Many were well aware of the need for a strong diaspora of Jews to fight anti-Semitism just as much as a Jewish state. Even so, this view was severely challenged after the Holocaust, so she's in the wrong time period.

She claims Herzl was an "Austrian atheist". That's also wrong. She gets basic details wrong just as much as larger facts. He wrote as much in his diaries, saying things like, "By means of our state, we can educate our people for tasks which still lie beyond our horizon. For God would not have preserved our people for so long if we did not have another destiny in the history of mankind".

She flips next to a map of "Greater Israel", a rather alarming map that bears no real basis in reality. It seeks to portray one interpretation of the Biblical kingdoms of Israel, and she is implying that Israel or Zionists generally sought to recreate that area, from the Nile to the Euphrates rivers, which is what is actually an extreme minority. She claims that Argentina and Uganda were first considered, but this is a misnomer, since in reality Argentina was dropped fairly immediately following Herzl's musings on it in Der Judenstaat in 1896, and Uganda was actually just the name of the "Uganda Plan" that died in the early 1900s and was actually about an area in Kenya. It is called the Uganda Plan for an entirely different reason than where the land was; it was on the Uganda Railway when Chamberlain saw it and was previously part of the Uganda Protectorate. She claims that the Zionist movement claimed "Greater Israel", which is patently false. The Basel Program, written in 1897 and written with the goal of effectively jumpstarting political Zionism and uniting representatives from numerous countries behind one goal, sought a Jewish state "in Palaestina", not in parts of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, etc., and "Palestine" was the name used for the region generally, not based on any borders (which did not yet exist), following in the tradition of its root, Syria Palaestina, the name given the area by the Romans when they conquered it from the Jews.

I've made it 3.5 minutes in, and part of that is just introduction I can't touch on. So far she's already gotten wrong:

1. Using a map that has no consistent measurements or facts behind it.

2. Misleading on the composition and relevant divisions of Jerusalem's population (and failing to specify which census she uses, or how accurate it is).

3. Claiming Zionism wants an "exclusively Jewish" state, when it wants no such thing.

4. Misleading on the popularity of Zionism and on the question of handling Diaspora relations.

5. Claiming falsely that Herzl was an atheist.

6. Misleading on the location and importance of various alternatives for a Jewish state.

7. According legitimacy to the "Greater Israel" conspiracy theory by blatantly lying about Zionist goals.

I can't go any further, I'm sorry. I have other things to do with my day, and I've found that typing up this much for 3.5 minutes is exhausting.