Gideon Levy on the killing in Gaza

[Auvergne63]

A very interesting transcript of an interview with Gideon Levy.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/israeli-journalist-gideon-levy-on-the-killing-of-gaza

Firstly, you finding it ridiculous doesn't mean it is.
Secondly,
1)These are the views of some Israelis when asked if they knew how many children have been killed in Gaza. This is clearly explained at the beginning of the video. The film maker's name is clearly stated too.
2) Before posting this clip, I researched him. He is Israeli himself. I suggest you do the same. He also asked each interviewee the same questions. .
3)The views ,expressed in this video from random members of the public, are shocking to me and very revealing too of how what is happening in Gaza is viewed, by some, in Israel.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Odd, I would expect you to know who Lowkey is, or at least to have looked him up once I told you that he was a well known antisemite, before judging anything he had produced. I'm not remotely interested in anything he has to say, even if a stopped clock etc

I just looked at his wiki page, he is described as:

"Lowkey is a vocal opponent of Zionism and is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign. He characterizes Zionism as colonialism and ethnic cleansing."

Nothing about antisemitism. I didn't find anything antisemitic in his video either.

To be a vocal opponent of the existence of the state of Israel is generally a good indicator of being antisemitic.
To characterise the State of Israel as 'colonialism and ethnic cleansing' also falls within the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

For anyone who cares about antisemitism that would be enough. However any google search would also have brought up other examples of his antisemitic activities, his collaborations with known antisemites and regular controversies around his associations and appearances.

You chose not to look at those, but your lack of curiosity is revealing.

Looks like a refresher on the IHRA definition of antisemitism is much needed.

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include, but are not limited to:

1. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations.
2. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
3. Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
4. Using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel or Israelis.
5. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
6. Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.

Full link here holocaustremembrance.com/resources/working-definition-antisemitism

"You chose not to look at those, but your lack of curiosity is revealing."

I'm not choosing anything. I stated that I don't know much about him and I'm basing my thoughts on what he says in the video. Also, I don't agree with IHRA definition of antisemitism as it sounds like it is up to interpretation. For instance, "Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel" regarded as antisemitism but I would say it depends on the context. Let's say, if I think Ben Shapiro is more loyal to Israel and voice my opinion based on my objective observation, this is not hate against Jews but it is simply the truth in that specific case. Regarding my statement as antisemitism is disregarding my reality. I can object to other items in above list depending on the context.

You didn't read it, did you?
The definition says:
'taking into account the overall context'.

I really don't think that you can plausibly argue that you have considered how antisemitism works more thoroughly than the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

You can't see how Lowkey's stance falls within that definition. You don't read or reflect on the definition.

Its all here, for all to see. But I have nothing more to say to you.

Or let's say, if an elected American politician is taking AIPAC money and voting in a way to benefit Israel first and disregarding USA's advantages/disadvantages, am I expected to have a right to criticize this politician? Let's say I do have the right. What if this politician is also a Jew? Then I shouldn't be able to criticize the politician because according to IHRA definition this is antisemitism. See, right there, we have a double standard. These over generalized assumptions without specific context seem like prone to cause inconsistencies and aim to shut down any legitimate criticization.

You can be sure I would argue the same way for another concept that limits freedom of speech.

This is not true. Any criticism of Israel is not shut down is it? In fact criticism of Israel is widespread from governments, NGOs, individuals and in endless threads on MN - and of the government by Israelis, in Israel. Anyone can see this. Anyone who can't recognise antisemitism and can't see see when it is NOT being invoked doesn't really have any credibility.

I, and other posters, have been consistently accused of being antisemitic, especially at the beginning, when criticising the Israeli government's actions.
This is a fact; this is my reality as well as others.
I would also point out this accusation has been used in relation to the UN/many NGOs/ country (Ireland) and others. Netanyahu himself has used the term against the UN.

So what? You can criticise whoever you like. I haven't noticed criticism stopping you posting. The number of threads on here suggest nobody is being shut down. I really dont know how anyone can say with a straight face, that criticism of Israel is shut down when we have lived with vast numbers of threads here and weely protests on our streets and everything else in between. Of course some criticism of Israel internationally is motivated by antisemitism. How could it not be? Surely you are not arguing that there is no antisemitism in some countries' criticism of Israel?? Thousands of years of prejudice, persecution and genocide just evaporated?

If you are interested in how to criticise Israel without resorting to antisemitism there's lots to read. I suggest starting with investigating The Livingstone Formulation, coined by David Hirsh, a Professor at Goldsmiths. Livingstone seemed also to grapple with it.

So what?
Great comeback!
You can criticise whoever you like.
Thank you.
The number of threads on here suggest nobody is being shut down. I really dont know how anyone can say with a straight face, that criticism of Israel is shut down when we have lived with vast numbers of threads here and weely protests on our streets and everything else in between.
Did I ever say that people were being shut down? That wasn't what was discussed.
Of course some criticism of Israel internationally is motivated by antisemitism.
Never said it wasn't.
Thousands of years of prejudice, persecution and genocide just evaporated?
Care to elaborate?
If you are interested in how to criticise Israel without resorting to antisemitism
Are you calling me an antisemite?

No I don't care to elaborate on the history of antisemitism and the history of the persecution of the Jewish people. You know that history full well.

Criticism and debate are OK, but there have been attempts to shut people down, and there are extremists on this platform, who take real world actions that cause distress and waste public resources. This is a criminal offence.

I am not violent and I support the human rights of all types of people everywhere, and apparently that is a problem.

I’m not suggesting that you are involved in this @SharonEllis I just want to make you aware.

I didn't ask you to do this. I asked you to elaborate on why you said that that "Thousands of years of prejudice, persecution and genocide just evaporated"

Weaponising anti-semitism is used often to shut down criticism of Israel. For example saying that Israel targets Palestinian civilians in Gaza and murders them is shouted down as anti-semitic. When in reality this is the truth as many soldiers have testified themselves in recent weeks.