Gideon Levy on the killing in Gaza

I have no idea who Lowkey is or no idea about his prior statements. I had his video opened yesterday before the original post deleted, just watched it. He is correct about Trump's cabinet picks so far being extremely pro-Israel either because of their personal views or business connections. At the end of the video, he makes 3 predictions about Trump's incoming presidency:
1- Trump will recognize Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank
2- He will seek to escalate with Iran
3- He will support Israel's demolishing of Al-Aqsa and the establishment of the Third Temple

I believe all 3 above are plausible. I think he wouldn't prefer starting a new war but he'll be cornered into supporting one against Iran. I don't have enough info if 1st item can become a reality but if it comes to that point, Trump wouldn't have any problem supporting it. About 3rd item, with so many Christian Zionists supporting Republicans in USA, I don't think he'll have any problem defending Israel if it becomes a reality. However, the demolishing of Al-Aqsa might mean a bigger war in the Middle East so I just hope it doesn't happen.

I do think it lets you know what some people do genuinely think, though it would obviously never be as meaningful an insight as an anonymous poll asking the same questions of a wide band of people.

Even when some news programmes try not to be biased and do so by including opposing views (the BBC will do this), it is usually not truly analytical in that they don’t say how many people hold view a. and how many view b. the way a poll does.

All of that is beside the point. A film like that is just impressionistic and not analytical. It may feed & justify what people want to believe but doesn't really help us to know or understand anything more than before.

What you say is certainly possible. It depends on the integrity of the journalist.

I was just reading a Jerusalem Post article related to Hamas and the hostages, and happened to read the Comments Section.
Presumably that is a case where the group is self-selecting firstly by choosing that paper perhaps, secondly by choosing to respond.

They were just about all violent in their feelings about Hamas and Palestinians, some sticking with ethnic cleansing, one suggesting 100 Israeli prisoners killed for every hostage not released, some going so far as to bring up Amalek, or to nuke the whole place with neutron bombs, or accusing the families of hostages forum itself of being pro-Hamas.

So, on the basis of these comments I can certainly believe that some Israelis would concur with those in the video Auvergne63 posted ( with n.b. the wording that she knew not all Israelis would think this way).

What percentage think this way? It does not seem negligible, whatever it is. It would not matter if it were just people’s private views, and we in the UK would be similar. The problem is if the views are a reflection of the leadership, or begin to drive events. There was an article by a former Israeli leader some months ago now saying about 40% of the IDF now are extremists, and the make-up of the government includes extremists who are having a strong effect on Netanyahu’s decisions, and on what settlers are doing in the West Bank.

Er yes, I do know. Basically a string of vox pops which is the lowest & laziest form of 'journalism'. You also need to know where people are coming from. Someone who just lost a relative on 7 October might have a different angle from a peace activist, or a politician, or whatever. But with no context, no analysis it reveals less than nothing.

You do realise how these things work right? Someone wanderers around with a camera asking rando. people questions, edits together clips of whatever agrees with the narrative they are trying to present and then puts it on social media and says "See! This is what x group of people say/believe/do". For all you know for every interview in that video there may be ten other people who expressed an opposing sentiment, but they never made the cut.

Of course, I might have made one or two small spelling or grammar mistakes in that paragraph so you'll probably focus on that instead.

They are all saying something different. How can you judge that they are reading from a script? In fact how can you judge anything? There is no context, we don't know who people are, who is asking the questions. Its ridiculous.

I haven’t read it all yet as it is long, but it is very interesting, thank you.

This all looks interesting, I will have a read later. Thank you for replying

I did a degree in history a few decades ago, and more recently, in relation to how DC are taught for example, I have noticed what you say. It applies to other areas of the world such as Soviet Union, there are huge areas left untaught - it wasn't so much that we were taught to look at the history positively - neither positively or negatively in fact - more that we were taught about all relevant aspects of Soviet history, not exclusively about purges, all of which is interesting and important and extremely relevant to the rest of the world. Also in relation to the subject of the thread, I see now the history of both the modern conflict and earlier history of the area will sometimes leave out huge chunks of relevant information.

I get the impression that it depends on the teacher. In the UK, history is supposed to be taught without bias. I know in some areas of the world what is taught is prescribed. And how our media now presents things is biased to the point of being meaningless in relation to certain subjects.

There seems to be a downward spiral in terms of education standards in some areas. But not across the board, it depends on the individual school and other factors. And government policy about specific areas, which changes with the wind.

On the other hand, certain specific and discrete areas of education have well funded interest groups, lobby groups. Perhaps this is affecting everything.

'Journalist' 🤮

Nobody would benefit from anything Lowkey does except as a case study in antisemitism. He is an open racist and anti-Israel anti-Jewish activist. He has defended notorious racists such as David Miller who was sacked over his antisemitism, he's attacked Zelensky & Ukraine, NATO.

@thousandsofdreams I'm saying that in order to bring down Ottoman Empire, nationalism has been a tool to incentivize minorities living under the empire. British used the same idea when promising independence to Arabs. As far as I know, Rothschilds funded Zionism but it's not their idea. I believe Theodor Herzl is the father of Zionism, here is his interactions with Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II (from wikipedia):

"In Istanbul, Ottoman Empire, 15 June 1896, Herzl saw an opportunity. With the assistance of Count Philip Michael von Nevlinski, a Polish émigré with political contacts in the Ottoman Court, Herzl attempted to meet SultanAbdulhamid II in order to present his solution of a Jewish State to the Sultan directly. He failed to obtain an audience but did succeed in visiting a number of highly placed individuals, including the Grand Vizier, who received him as a journalist representing the Neue Freie Presse. Herzl presented his proposal to the Grand Vizier: the Jews would pay the Turkish foreign debt and help Turkey regain its financial footing in return for Palestine as a Jewish homeland."

Sultan Abdulhamid II didn't accept the offer and I believe there is a lot of connection with this refusal and his dethronement.

https://www.dailysabah.com/arts/young-turks-jews-freemasons-and-the-armenian-deportation/news

@thousandsofdreams "Different point - you say history about Turkey is not taught as it should be - I wondered what you meant by this?"

We're not objectively being taught about Ottoman Empire history, we're expected to think negatively about Ottoman Empire and be grateful about the modern western-wanna-be republic. There is no critical thinking when discussing history or self criticization. These have changed within the last 20 years within the Ottoman-loving AKP administration but still I don't think critical thinking and objectivity are highly regarded in education. Even in academia people are highly polarized and create publications based on their side, either very pro-Turkey or very against-Turkey.

@OchaLove

Would you mind explaining what you meant by this:
It is not very obvious up front (even to Turks as history is not taught as it should be) but Zionism has a lot to do with ultra nationalism in Turkey against Christian minorities (Greeks, Armenians) and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. All these countries, which were formed by the British where we see conflict and destabilization today such as Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iraq, and Palestine were under Ottoman Empire control.

Syria, Lebanon, etc were formed after promises made by the British etc that if the Arabs helped them defeat the Ottoman empire, they would be given independence (hence the states being formed pursuant to LofN Mandates after ww1 had ended). The destabilisation today is perhaps linked to the fact that although they were granted independence, in recent years attempted western influence has ebbed and flowed, perhaps. The World Zionist Org was I think (I might be wrong) the brainchild of powerful bankers such as the Rothschilds? It was a Rothschild who met with the foreign minister in Britain and requested a homeland for Jewish people, and it was the British agreement to this, documented in the brief and controversial Balfour Agreement, which caused the conflict with the Arabs to whom the promises had been made in relation to Palestine. I am not sure how Zionism was linked to the ultra nationalism in the Ottoman empire?

Different point - you say history about Turkey is not taught as it should be - I wondered what you meant by this?

I am not really sure what you are suggesting here, with your question about when the terrorism started? There were conflicting promises made to the Arabs and to the Israelis. This video provides quite a lot of footage and insights, it might help understand the complexity and the dynamics at the time.

Correct, and much respect to Queen Elizabeth, unlike many politicians she stayed committed to never condoning/forgiving the extra judicial murder of British citizens. I mean how could anyone break bread with people who kidnapped British soldiers, murdered and booby trapped their bodies to explode.
http://britishpalestinepolice.org.uk/polhist44.html

Jewish nationalism evolved throughout the 19thc, alongside many other anti-monarchist and anti-imperial movements. Nationalism, communism, fascism and many more "isms" appeared out of the industrial revolution.

It's for individuals or communities to say how they identify not me - or you.

Any movement that relies on the subjugation, expulsion, extermination, humiliation, and brutalisation of another population for it's own existence and prosperity is evil don't you think?

Terrorism was brought to the region by these terrorist groups.

Listening to the testimony of British soldiers (many of them working class) is eye opening.

No one was safe, even UN mediator Count Bernadotte (a person who rescued many people from the Nazis during WW2) was murdered by these gangs.

Much like the present day Israeli Government and IDF they saw themselves as above the law.
https://www.un.org/en/video/mideast-mediators-murder-palestine-1948#:~:text=On%2017th%20September%2C%201948%2C%20Count,by%20a%20Zionist%20militant%20organization.