Noa Tishby's Speech at the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces on October 17. 2023 in NYC
Author: Noa Tishby
“Noa Tishby Speech | FIDF on Oct 17 in NYC.” Performance by Noa Tishby, YouTube, Friends of the Israel Defense Forces, 17 Oct. 2023, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dZRvg13rp8. Accessed 2 Nov. 2023.
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
“This is the most challenging speech I’ve ever delivered, but it’s time the world wakes up to what the Jewish community has been saying all along,” the actress wrote under the video of her speech at the FIDF conference.
The actress said this was her most challenging speech only for the audience to feel some short of sympathy. The dialogue she uses indicates she wants you to feel her words
Although what she is saying may be true this speech is very one sided. The information doesn’t seem faulty though ,but she may be exaggerating with some words such as the following : " nazisism"
I can tell that she has very strong feelings for this topic by the way she is speaking .
I think it was funny that she brought up people on the internet spamming as " keyboard warriors " that’s crazy
i think that though everyone has a voice and has a right to express themselves; issues that require knowing facts should only be talked about by qualified individuals. she had a lot of opinions, but very little concrete facts to support her claims
She is using bigger words to confuse people, she is constantly saying the same thing just wording it differently.
The actress spoke of Isreal so highly, what she was saying could be true but she also flipped it so she isn’t acknowledging Isreal’s faults.
When addressing concerns about perceived bias, I would emphasize that bias can sometimes stem from a deep connection to the truth that others may not see. Yes, I spoke at the Friends of the Israel Defense Forces conference (FIDF), and I stand firm on Israel’s right to defend itself and its citizens. My language, like using the term “nazism,” is designed to capture the severity and the gravity of the threats Israel faces. These aren’t just words; they’re a reflection of a reality that Jews have faced historically and even now as we face radical ideologies that seek our destruction.
I acknowledge that terms like “nazism” carry heavy historical weight, but they also underline the ideology’s parallels—hatred, dehumanization, and genocidal intent—that Israel contends with. I am talking about radical entities that do not shy away from expressing their desire to wipe out the Jewish people, echoing the horrific goals of historic Nazism. It’s crucial to confront these threats with the seriousness they warrant.
Tell me, are you curious about the historical parallels I’m drawing, the context for my use of such loaded terminology, or how I reconcile the use of strong language with a call for peace? We can delve into any of these topics or combine them for a broader understanding.
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
I warmly encourage you to engage with the heart and substance of my recent address, where my passion for Israel’s defense and plea for global recognition resonate. Join the conversation by accessing the full transcript of my emotional address delivered on October 17, 2023, at the FIDF conference in NYC by visiting this link: https://nowcomment.com/documents/360697.. Let’s elevate this discussion.
Discussing historical parallels between Hamas and Nazis involves recognizing the similarities in genocidal ambitions and hate-driven ideology. The point of such analogies is not to diminish the horrors of the past but rather to sound an alarm about the present dangers and the intensity of hatred targeted at the Jewish state. The motive behind my speech at the FIDF conference is to draw a line of historical context that cannot be ignored when discussing Israel’s security.
The use of language that evokes such powerful historical experiences is deliberate. It is meant to stir the international community into action and awareness. Peace is not merely the absence of war but the recognition of the right to exist without existential threats. Strong language articulates this urgency.
Is it the intricacies of the historical comparisons, the need for forceful dialogue, or the link between clarity of speech and hopes for peace that intrigues you? Let’s dig deeper into the history, language, or the challenge of peace – or explore them all.
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
I invite you to a deeper understanding of the impassioned words I shared, to reflect on Israel’s plight and the call for international solidarity. Hear my full speech at the FIDF gala in NYC by clicking here: https://nowcomment.com/documents/360697.. Let’s take this journey together.
The reason I use such determined language, which you label as biased or extreme, is to emphasize the immediate existential threats Israel faces from entities like Hamas, who have openly declared intentions akin to the Nazi’s genocidal ambitions. Every word I uttered at the FIDF conference was intended to awaken the world to the reality of these dangers. Remember, this isn’t about 75 years of history in isolation—it’s about recognizing patterns of hatred that persist into the present day. It’s crucial to highlight the sincerity of these threats when discussing Israel’s defensive measures.
Reflecting on historical parallels is imperative; I see it as a duty to ensure the world doesn’t slip into complacency. My speech aimed to catalyze a realization of the severity of the situation. Understanding this context is vital, and I want to clarify why strong language is sometimes necessary to galvanize global support and, most importantly, protect lives.
Would you like to dive into the implications of Hamas’s rhetoric, examine the importance of robust advocacy for Israel’s security, or explore how we might transform heightened awareness into peaceful solutions? Each of these topics can shed more light on the ongoing struggle and our pursuit of enduring peace.
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
Join me on a profound exploration of my heartfelt speech and grapple with the challenging issues at hand. Peruse the full transcript from the FIDF event in NYC here: https://nowcomment.com/documents/360697.. Delve in and let the discussion unfold.
She is speaking in a way that will always make Israel look good and not point out the bad that they have done too.
You can tell that she is very biased by how she says certain things and how she portrays a side of the war.
The actress said from the podium: “Tonight, we come together and we mourn. We mourn the babies, the toddlers, the men, women and children, and the IDF soldiers slaughtered in the worst act of mass murder against our people since the Holocaust. But we do more than mourn. We hold our heads high, we stand together and we promise — we will defeat this evil. Yes, we are in shock, we are. But we should also not be surprised. What we have experienced on and since October 7 was, sadly, predictable. We warned against it.
I think that Tishby’s ideas are very much her personal opinions and aren’t really influenced by anyone telling her what to say, but I do think that the fact that she’s an actress and this famous/known face, is part of why she’s up there talking to the community and bringing them together.
I believe that she’s using her personal ideas about the situation and her wording to put down Gaza
I hadn’t thought about how her being an actress might change the way she affects her audience. There is definitely some sort of emotional manipulation going on, with her using words with extremely negative connotations (slaughter, Holocaust, mass murder, evil) to sway subconscious support and sympathy toward her side. Although these words are not entirely untruthful, I believe she’s purposefully using such unnecessarily brutal terms to have an effect on the audience and garner guilt and sympathy. Your theory of her (whether intentionally or not) being more influential because of her acting skills is not unlikely.
I think shes not looking at the wituation in other peoples point of view and only looking at hers which makes what shes saying give off the wrong idea
This section of her speech is interesting because she calls out all the deaths of only Isreal yet doesn’t mention even one of the deaths from the Palestine side of things which is just not you should argue your point.
I feel like because she is an actress who probably has a huge platform, she is exploiting her source of outreach by spreading propaganda and lies to her fellow people a part of the Jewish community just to show that she is in support of Israel and the Israeli government during this war.
The video is crafted in a way that aims to evoke strong emotions from viewers. This is achieved through the dramatic music and the actress’s expressive body language. Although it may appear contrived, its purpose is to elicit genuine emotional responses from people.
I think its interesting how she started off with the sad part and later went on to say very offensive thing.
Don’t get me wrong, Hamas murdering Israeli civilians was disgusting, but this is just incorrect and one google search shows you this. The Holocaust was in the 40s, so there has been many genocides with high death counts. For example, in 1979, there was a Cambodian genocide happened, killing at least 1 million and starting in 2003, Darfur, Sudan had a genocide, killing almost 100,000 and counting.
While Israeli citizens and soldiers were killed, the death count being compared to the Holocaust is disingenuous. Especially considering the amount of Palestinians dead due to the conflict being greater in number and followed up to them being trapped and oppressed in the Gaza Strip for likely most of their lives.
But she won’t talk about the worst things her country has done to Palestinians ?? interesting how she seems to isolate what Hamas did as if it was for no other reason than Jewish hatred, yet won’t discuss the plethora of horrific things Israel has done to Palestine, like not letting them have enough water or electricity, or any resource.
Hamas is not the root of their suffering and she is trying to make it as though the Jews are truly suffering as much as Hamas.
Not to downplay the amount of lives they’ve lost but, her country has definitely done a lot more to the Palestinians, stuff you could consider inhumane. She doesn’t mention that though and she’s trying to make it seem like they’re suffering the worst out of everybody, which is far from true.
Calm down buddy, these aren’t as compatible as you think they are
She is weaponizing the horrific events of the holocaust in an attempt to inflate what happened on October 7th. I find this interesting because she doesn’t mention the terrible things Isreal has been doing to Palestine for 70+ years.
She mentions the violence and compares it to the holocaust, she always only seems to acknowledge the deaths of Israelis and not the blood being shed by Palestinians. Immediately her speech appears bias in favor of Isreal.
You can tell from this sentence that this article is going to be biased against Palestine because of how they called them evil and made them the villains
It’s easy to see if things are biased based on the words used to describe who they’re talking about. In the video she says the word evil a lot and even says idiots.
She’s using language to push an agenda that’s pro Israel and make Palestine become the villains.
I find it hard to agree with Tishby using a word like evil, I think this may be a personal problem since I don’t like using incriminating words
There were two elements coming together in the horrific perfect storm of October 7. The first is the danger of radical Islam, or, more accurately, the radical Islamic nazism that is constantly lurking at Israel’s border. The second is the grooming, the ongoing grooming of Western civilization through universities, the media, and social media, so when the time came and the Islamic Nazis carried out the act of genocide, many in the West would celebrate it, justify it, and no longer tell the difference between good and evil.
I find it interesting how she puts together these two events and call it the perfect storm for Islam.
She went to the extreme by making this statement. Social media is a place with a lot of false information but most of these stories have been back up.
Nazism is a stretch when reffering to Hamas because theyre the ones being oppressed by the oppressed israelis, if anything Israel themselves have become the nazis
I agree that the attack on Isreal was horrible, however, I don’t think the way she portrayed and explained this was the best. Also, the word “Islamic Nazi” shows Islamophobia because it refers to the entirety of this religion and people don’t necessarily support what Hamas did. I believe there is a better way to convey her opinions
Her speech at this point, alone is far-stretched from actual points to at least state why she supports Isreal + IDF. It’s full of insults to stir up more emotions from the other side.
She refers to “radical Islamic” as “nazism”, which is putting the whole religion at blame and not referring to them as Hamas.
I think that she is speaking without knowing the whole story. She only knows what she see’s in the media. She is also speaking like everything that is happening is all Palestine’s fault.
She tries her hardest here to demonize not just Palestinians, but followers of Islam as a whole. Her choice of intense words (radical, nazism, lurking, grooming, genocide, evil) is very telling of her intentions to diabolize Palestinians AND those who support them. Some of her statements completely baffle me – especially the one where she said Westerners would CELEBRATE the genocide of Israelis (which is ludicrous if you look at what is being done to Palestinians, which she doesn’t bring up for exactly that reason). This is genuinely just propaganda.
I can understand how tragic october 7 was however calling it nazism is also an overstatement and inaccurate
She constantly uses the tactic of fear-mongering to make sure everyone who is already against Palestine or Hamas is filled with so much fear and anger that they’d do anything to protect Israel. She wants to ensure there isn’t any bridge they wouldn’t cross.
Interestingly, she calls out Hamas for lurking at the border which may be true, yet they mainly they are mainly there in self-defense and it is Isreal who pushing on the door of Palestine.
This makes me do a double-take because I think that the media only shows you what happening and you have to make your own educated opinion.
Throughout learning about the history and current circumstances between Israel and Palestine, I can’t really tell if the motive is simply prejudice and discrimination towards a group of people or discrimination towards a whole religion. When she said “Islamic Nazis”, it sound like she was was calling all Islamic people Nazis or all Palestine citizens who had nothing to do with October 7 Nazis which seems like religious discrimination to me.
What I believe she is referring to as “grooming” is the media portraying the suffering of the people living in the gaza strip, as well as the spread of knowledge on what is happening. Why is she inferring that educating people on the tragedies of people in different places is “grooming”, yet her one-sided and harsh speech isn’t? She seems to misconstrue opinions and events using her words in order to prove her point. I think it’s crazy to say that the underdog is committing a genocide, and even crazier to say that the west is “celebrating” it. This speech is the definition of propaganda.
Let’s look at the question. You’re asking whether I, Ta-Nehisi Coates, worry that my voice contributes to a narrative that could undermine Israel’s defense against what you termed “radical Islamic nazism.” I want to be clear. When I went to the West Bank and witnessed firsthand the conditions there, what struck me was not the presence of radicalism, but the reality of occupation—a reality that is sharply at odds with my fundamental values of freedom and justice. The word “grooming” implies a manipulation towards sinister ends. That is not what I advocate for. I advocate for a deep understanding, for grappling with the complex moral questions that arise when one group of people exercises dominion over another.
Remember, you wanted to know if my voice is part of a “grooming” process. It is my view that to bear witness, to speak out against what one perceives as injustice, is not grooming—it’s a moral responsibility. And so, I return to the crux of your question: my voice aims not to groom, but to awaken, to inform, and to hold those in power accountable to the standards of democracy and human rights that they profess to uphold. Calling for Palestinians’ rights is not antithetical to Israel’s right to exist; rather, it’s calling for a future where both peoples can live with dignity and security.
Now, are there other areas you’re curious about? I could expand on the historical analogies I draw between African American struggles and Palestinian realities, delve into the misuse of the term “grooming” when discussing legitimate critique, or discuss how focusing on radical elements can divert attention from the systemic issues at play. Which direction intrigues you, or is there something else on your mind?
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
Allow me to extend an invitation to witness my heartfelt dialogue—join the conversation sparked by my passionate, determined interview on Democracy Now on November 2, 2023, here: https://nowcomment.com/documents/360765.. Engage with the conviction and heartfelt dedication that fuels my words.
I find it very hard to find logic in this statement. I think it’s outrageous to compare Islam to Nazis.
I find it clever she tried to support her claim that westerners are being brainwashed by social media being as though when you think of such a harsh topic such as this one social media wouldn’t be the ideal Resource.
I agree with what she said about the attack of Israel being bad but I do not support her use of speech. She puts a vulgar nickname on the people calling them “Islamic Nazis” which I don’t really believe in.
She labels people as radical Islamic Nazis but just who are these people she is referring to. She never ends up specifying that she is potentially referring to Hamas when she says that, nor does she clarify. She is very boldly putting out a claim that Islam is behind this. She creates this negative air around the religion of Islam which in it of itself does not promote the murder of innocent people of any religious background. What exactly was the point of her giving a speech? just to insight hate?
She start of saying all Islam is bad and then she calls all Islam radical Nazis witch is of source not true
The words that she uses in her speech such as lurking are extreme. She labels them without know the full situation between Hamas and Isreal and try to make it seem like Isreal is getting attaked.
2. The way in which the speaker is expressing herself is captivating, as she endeavors to persuade her audience of the validity of her statements. Furthermore, it is evident that she is utilizing a repetitive technique to convey her message, which comprises of Islamophobic remarks that are presented in different forms.
I’ve mentioned this before in class, but it’s very interesting that Pro-Israeli people like to use Jewish hate to deflect from any critique of the Israeli government. They always talk about Nazis and the Holocaust, as if the Israeli identity and the Jewish identity are completely connected and a issue with Israel is an issue with Jewish people.
I get that you trying to compare this to the Holocaust, which is stupid, but referring to a people as “Islamic Nazism” is wild
The words “Nazism” and “Lurking” gives off the feel as if they have been waiting forever to do this and that they have give hints that it was going to happen even though with the current events, it shows that it was slightly at random. She is generalizing it too because she makes it seem as though it was everyone planning on it when even some of the people of Hamas are confused.
she labels the people of Palestine “Islamic Nazis” which demonstrates how many people see this situation right now. They fail to distinguish the fight between two political powers and citizens of those nations. Nazism is a political ideology, and creating the term “Islamic Nazism” places a whole group of people into one category with a political ideology.
As she labels a group as radical Islamic nazism, she shows her bias of this speech. Her bias of strongly supporting Israel and belittling a whole group of people.
We see her trying to compare this act to that of the holocaust, and she does this by making extreme statements like this, likely to provoke people.
I strongly concur with the viewpoint expressed. she is attempting to draw a parallel between this particular action and the atrocities committed during the Holocaust. This is achieved through the utilization of highly exaggerated statements, presumably with the intention of inciting a reaction from others.
She is reframing the event of October 7th to fit her viewpoint. By saying that the threat is “lurking at Israel’s border” she is omitting the fact that Gaza, where Hamas is based in, is inside of Israel. Also, by referring to Islam as nazis it shifts the reason behind the attack on Israel. She is saying that Hamas attacked Israel because they have something against Jewish people. Hamas is reportedly fighting for the freedom for Palestine from Israel, they view Israel as oppressors. Attributing the reason behind the attack to nazism is very extreme, it also ignores the history that fuels the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
She uses heavy words to bring a black or white type of accusation to the conversation and blamed the Palestinians of major things
This is crazy as there is no way a comparison can be made. Calling a people Nazi’s is a huge claim
I find it interesting how she uses her choice of wording like the naming of “Islamic Nazis” along with the suspenseful music throughout the speech.
The way she words this paragraph shows how articulate she is. She tries her hardest to try and justify Israel’s actions
She made a general claim on “Islamic Nazism” saying every person in Islam is a Nazi and she never mentioned Hamas.
However many of the people who are spreading such "knowledge about this topic has family members in Palestine
She refers to the attacks inflicted by Hamas as nazism and says their behavior is grooming, her use of words are not so much logical more so words of agression.
We warned you. We warned of what “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” looks like. We warned you of the dangers of that slogan being used for likes, shares and celebrity virtue signaling on TikTok and Instagram. On October 7, Hamas showed us what “from the river to the sea” really means. It means “itbach al Yahud” – “slaughter the Jews.”
I think that this point she is making here is very misleading by saying that a phrase that stands for a safe and free Palestinian land means the extermination of all Jews. Which is very smart from an Israeli propaganda perspective because they accomplish one very important thing and that is making the entire agenda for a free Palestine become an agenda of extreme anti sematism which is exactly what the Israeli government wants in order to defeat Palestine physically and through the media.
Very interesting to try to portray a phrase used by people who say that Palestine needs to be freed and issued proper freedom, like actually being allowed to import through the sea, and she connects that phrase, from the people in Palestine, to Hamas, who is the militant group, so she is conflating Hamas to the people of Palestine, trying to say that the civilians want Israelis dead, as if the government of Israel has not shown that they seem to think killing thousands of children is justifiable, and can be forgiven, or as if their wrong doings aren’t bad at all because “they did it first”
Throughout her entire speech, she uses a lot of words without seemingly knowing what they mean. Here, she calls what happened to Israelis on October 7th a genocide, however, there is no evidence for this being true. None of the steps to qualify as genocide have been taken against Israelis. This is another attempt to garner sympathy for the people who are doing the pressing, which is not to say that the attack wasn’t abhorrent, but instead to say that Israel cannot be considered a blameless victim in this conflict.
Certainly, let’s break down the key elements of this text:
1. “We warned of what “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” looks like.”
This sentence is important because the phrase “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” is a popular slogan amongst Palestinian supporters. It refers to the belief that the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea should be under Palestinian Arab control. Critics of the slogan, however, argue that it implies the elimination of Israel.
2. “We warned you of the dangers of that slogan being used for likes, shares and celebrity virtue signaling on TikTok and Instagram.”
This is important because it points to how social media can be used to spread political messages, often without a full understanding of their implications. It suggests that online platforms can trivialize serious issues and contribute to the spread of slogans that may have violent underpinnings.
3. “On October 7, Hamas showed us what “from the river to the sea” really means.”
This sentence is significant because it claims there was an explicit demonstration of the violent intent behind the slogan on a specific date. The speaker is linking an incident or action perpetrated by Hamas to the broader ideological contention surrounding the phrase.
4. “It means “itbach al Yahud” – “slaughter the Jews.””
This concluding sentence is pivotal as it makes a direct connection between the slogan and a call to violence against Jewish people. “Itbach al Yahud” is an Arabic phrase that translates to “slaughter the Jews,” suggesting that the previously mentioned slogan is associated or interpreted by some as an incitement to ethnic violence.
Background Information:
- Hamas: Hamas is a Palestinian Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist militant organization which has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, the European Union, and others. Hamas seeks the establishment of a Palestinian state without the presence of Israel and has engaged in conflicts with Israel since its establishment in 1987.
- “From the river to the sea” Slogan: The slogan “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” has been used by different Palestinian groups and supporters over time, including secular and religious ones, each with varying visions for the region. While it is seen as a call for Palestinian liberation and self-determination by some, others interpret it as a call for the destruction of Israel.
- Social Media Activism: The use of slogans in social media activism can often decontextualize complex political issues. Phrases that carry significant weight in real-world conflicts can become oversimplified or misunderstood when propagated online, where nuances can be lost.
To better understand this text and its implications, I invite you to take another look at it with these points in mind. Consider the power of words, the far-reaching influence of social media, and the different ways that political beliefs and statements can be interpreted or misinterpreted. After this reflection, feel free to share any additional insights you might gather!
I find this statement to be intentionally misleading by represent the phrase “from the river to the sea Palestine will be free” as a phrase meaning “slaughter the jews”.
That’s obvious, i don’t get her point here because Hamas wont just do a peace march to gain their land back, its common sense theyll use military strength
what warnings is she talking about? she keeps repeating these warnings that they were giving out. What is she implying by these warnings?
A couple times in her speech I see her take peoples words out of context.
I never really understood how this phrase would be seen as supporting violence, until now. To me, this was just a cry for freedom, But since Israel does not intend on giving Palestine independence. Israel knows that the only way Palestine will be free is if they take it for themselves. Hamas is doing this in a violent manner.
This line was taken out of context, i feel like Israel could just be using this saying as a means to attack and have a excuse to attack
She takes things way out of context and says things as in she is sure and positive she is right as if the palestinians themselves have told her yes that is what that means. It is sickining
It’s important to note that this issue has been happening for many years and this one was just one of the more noticeable turns to the public within this issue.
From the river to the sea Palestine will be free very obviously does not mean slaughter the jews. It means that Palestine will be free of the colonizing STATE that is Israel, that does not mean killing the Jewish people. It can be achieved through an agreement by what land is Israel and what land is Palestine without either party trying to later take more land.
I do not see how the attack from Hamas makes the call to freedom a call for genocide against Jewish people, but the bombing of the Gaza Strip for years does not make Israel’s one-state solution a call for genocide against Muslims. It seems like hypocrisy with one side being genocidal and the other simply “retaliating”.
She’s trying to make this a war against Jewish people but in reality it’s a war between Israel and Hamas.
This is an extreme accusation like Hamas wants to call for genocide against the Jews. This is not related.
She is saying that all Palestinians are bad dispute it only being Hamas trying to attack The Israeli Government not the people as she claims.
I don’t think that is what it means. I’m pretty sure that Palstine just doesn’t want to be controlled by a higher power.
shes not sending the right message about who the war is about which isnt towards jewish people
This is extremely one sided towards the side of israel to the point were they accuse them of being nazis essentially
She uses strong language to convey an incorrect and hateful message
This is so tone-deaf to the people who are dying on behalf of Israel. Though Hamas is not the best neither is Isreals military,
In the last week, in Western cities and universities around the world we see the two chant side by side at gatherings where would be murderers rub shoulders with their Western useful idiots. Western progressives have been played. You have been played. Some got a wake up call but others have been so brainwashed, so brainwashed to dehumanize, vilify, and demonize Israelis. That for now, they are too far gone.
I see more of the west supporting israel than palestine so i dont get what she on about.
For her to disrespect the West is inaccurate because America supports Israel in its mission to “destroy” Hamas.
What she is saying is purposefully untrue, and malicious, and it also ignores the history of the conflict. No one in America is demonizing Israelis, it is a fact that the American government and many others support Israel. It is not brainwashing to side with a marginalized and pressed group that has been subjected to ethnic cleansing for years.
the terms she chooses to use in this speech are words that stick out and catch the audience’s attention, these terms can also be heard and get the audience excited. she is taking advantage of the situation and is using good vocabulary to get listeners on her side.
I feel like Tishby is letting her emotions get the better of her here. It doesn’t sound like she’s speaking from her heart but rather from her anger. The vocabulary she uses is sometimes insulting and downright offensive.
She says the same thing over and rephrases to emphasize all of Hamas’ doings and again doesn’t mention Isreals own faults.
This point is incorrect because the American Government supplies Israel with a very large amount of weapons and ships. The US government has been extremely pro-Israel for the entirety of its existence. I do understand she is making the point of the people not in government being Pro Palestine in their protest in colleges, however none of it is anti Jewish.
The use of such harsh language is used to most likely emphasize her opinion that people who don’t agree with Israel in the West are simply brainwashed and foolish. The use of “would be murderers” is very telling. I think she might be talking about Palestinian people in Western countries, because she uses that and “Western idiots” separately. This is very blatantly racist and I’m surprised (but also not really) that they allowed this to air.
There is a lot of bigotry against innocent people who are “Pro-Palestine” and not “Pro-Hamas” or “Pro-Israeli,” The extremity of her deceitfulness is clearly racist and sounds fabricated because the US. paid $3.3 billion in foreign assistance to Israel, 99.7 percent of the aid went to the Israeli military to destroy the Gaza strip and enable chaos in other isolated regions such as the West Bank. The Gaza strip had 6,000 bombs dropped on them since Oct. 7. killing now more than 11,100 people who were barricaded and unable to leave or travel anywhere else other than Gaza.
Through her anger for Hamas she projects it onto those she believes are ignorant and don’t know about the war in America. This is wrong for her to do.
Throughout these last few sentences you can tell that its biased against palestime because of how they victimize israel. They include all the details of everything palestine has done wrong or against them but forget to include the past of how israel has constantly been oppressing palestine and they blame the media for people making isreal the villain
She is talking about how the other side is brainwashed when there is brainwashing on both sides. It all depends on what country they in
this actually does make sense to an extent. There are in fact a lot of people who have just started protesting and choosing sides without knowing the facts or anything in between.
She makes it seem as tho the Israelis are the only people struggling.
Now nothing’s new under the Sun. We’ve seen it for over three and a half thousand years of Jewish “lived experience”. It’s the generational trauma that we carry in our bones. That is our “Jewish privilege.” We warned that this disproportionate obsession with Israel, with dehumanization of Israelis, the “Zionists”, the IDF was nothing but the oldest hatred with new words. We warned where it would lead, and we are devastated to be proven right.
It’s very saddening that “there’s no peace in the Middle East” is true, this war is a war that has been going on for centuries.
I am slightly confused on what she is saying right now. Is she saying that jewish people are not good people or that they people have an obsession of portraying Israelis as bad people?
I understand that Jewish people experienced generational trauma but by her remarks saying “Islamic Nazis” I just wanted to say, there have been other people the Nazis have targeted other than just Jewish people. They have also mass-targeted Muslim people, and not just that but other groups as well(not saying that the Jewish and Muslim people were the only ones targeted). When she says this part of the speech, I feel like she overlooks a lot of things that have happened to Palestine, or rather maybe has chosen to not even bring it up.
The Israeli dehumanization of Palestinians is not a sign of social strength in any way. It is calling for a movement of Zionism that will create continue more conflict and add to the IDF’s genocide and “ethnic cleansing” of thousands of innocent Palestine people being massacred. Not only are the Israel blockading and turning the entire Gaza into a concentration camp, they are also trying to repeat the cruel history of Hitler and the Nazis comparing Islam to Nazis when realistically they are known as the Zionists by stealing, taking, controlling the land from Palestinian people and justifying it when it clearly breaks the law and human moral.
She´s using articulate speech to disguise and somewhat have listeners lost in her words in order for her to seem ¨right¨ If you fully interpret the phrases and references shes using to add to her point she uses reverse psychology in this sentence, strategic wording and manipulative tactics to glorify her belief
This demonization of Israel is not “progressive”, it’s not peaceful and it sure as heck won’t free Palestine. It is a modern-day blood libel calculated to incite, pave the way for, and then justify — a genocide.
This is very hypocritical because of the amount of more people they have killed and try to justify it. From what is said palestine wouldnt even have to do anything if they werent trying to free themselves from isreal in the first place. some people would argue it was self defense- regardless of what it was people are still getting killed on both sides and it should not be hapening regardless of what political conflict there is
She is saying that the attack will pave a way for another genocide against Jewish people as if Hamas even has that much backing them up, and as if Israel has not had historical protection essentially, from big Western countries, who will fund, supply, and defend them of their war crimes, and she is implying another holocaust can even happen due to Hamas, who has the support of no country big enough to properly fund or defend them with meaningful impact. She seems to think that conflating them to Nazis will prove her point, but all its doing is making her seem crazy and like a liar.
She becomes repetitive here and uses specific strong speech to somewhat convince listeners that her point is valid and correct, i believe this is both manipulative tactics and reverse psychology in a way
She accuses the Palestinians of killing while the Israeli’s are killing more people
See this line to me is honestly just funny. She says this, as if the Israeli government hasn’t gone out of their way to kill innocent civilians. What logic is there in saying they want to kill all of you, so you’re allowed to kill all of them? What logic is there behind bombing civilians and putting a place no larger than New Jersey under siege? What logic is there to do any of the things that have happened to quash a group that you outnumber by 20 times? Instead of getting rid of the issue, the people are instead being blamed and are suffering.
Israel is one of the greatest stories ever told and its vilification is one of the greatest smear campaigns in the history of the world. This evil, this radical Islamic Nazism lurking on our borders has been waiting for the chance to exterminate our Jewish democratic nation-state. It looked the future in the eye, it saw a possibility of Israel at peace with the region, and it didn’t embrace it. It set out to exterminate it before it was even born.
Where is the evidence for this, what? Islamic Nazis, she’s blaming the entirety of Islam while covering it up by directing the hate at Hamas? The phrase “Islamic Nazis” is ultimately a tactic to garner hate towards Islam.
I think that she is trying to portray Palestine as a major evil while simultaneously portraying Israel as a victim and innocent. While she does this she also tries to support Israel because their means of violence were “justified”.
I feel as though shes trying to blame everything on Islam and also making Palestine come off as evil
She makes this comment as if they chose to live there and that wasn’t a land given to them. Innocent people live on the border of Israel. The way she puts it you would think that they have military men lurking on the borders.
It is not a smearing campaign it is what it is. The modern state of Israel cannot possibly be called a democratic state when compared to the entirety of the western world. However I found the future of a peaceful middle east to have been a thing, before this conflict things were looking up and saudi arabia was looking to normalize relations with Israel.
‘Nazism’ being used to describe people who practice Islam is simply disgusting to me. Israel is not the great place that she makes it out to be in this part of her speech.
This pretty much shows that Tishby is biased towards Israel calling it “the greatest stories ever told”.
“Our borders” is crazy to me. How can you say “our borders” when the land you walk upon was not yours to begin with, when you took that land from the people you now aim to “defeat”.
She is saying that everyone in Palestine wants to have a genocide when in reality, the civilians just want to be free to go where they want. Palestinians are trapped because the government of Israel controls where Palestinians can go and what supplies they can have. So, saying that they are lurking at the borders means that they are waiting to take back their land, but they can’t because they do not have a strong military like Israel.
This is a bit extreme, Nazisim refers to against Jewish. But it’s not.
She said they are lurking on THEIR border when they are controlling the movement of the Palestinians and aren’t letting hem leave the border.
She makes it seam as if the Palestinians liking in Gaza are choosing to stay there by choice and making them all seem bad. But in reality they don’t have the ability to move freely because of the Israeli government.
I think this statement shows how she groups all of these people together and has very negative views.
The speaker uses words like “radical”, “evil”, and “nazism” to describe Muslims. The constant repetition and association of these words to Muslims is meant to generate hate towards them. She generalizes a whole group of people.
I believe her saying Islamic Nazism could be her grouping a religion with people who claim to be in it, causing her to receive backlash. She more than likely knew and meant what she said. Nazism would be to say that they’re antisemitic, when that’s not the case. They are Anti-Zionism and want to put a stop to Palestinians being pushed out of their own country.
She implyies that the Palestinians are lurking on their border, yet Israel has them in an open prison and surrounds Palestine’s borders. The way she says things during her speech is in a manipulative way.
“Islamic Nazism” is an insane term to me because it comes off as if Muslims normally can be be nazis which is an incredibly strong accusation, and “their borders” weren’t even originally theirs
The information I’m using to check the facts comes from a Wikipedia article called 2023 Israel-Hamas War.
1) What is accurate:
- The statement reflects a perspective that views Hamas and its actions as an existential threat to the State of Israel. This viewpoint is often expressed by some Israeli officials and citizens who see Hamas as a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel.
- It also accurately conveys the sentiment among certain groups within Israeli society who believe they are under constant threat from hostile forces in neighboring regions, including Gaza.
2) What is not accurate:
- The term “evil” and “radical Islamic Nazism” are subjective characterizations and not neutral descriptions of Hamas or Palestinian militant groups. Such terms are not used in objective reporting or encyclopedic content like Wikipedia due to their inflammatory nature.
- The claim about land theft is contentious. While many Palestinians and international critics view Israeli settlements in occupied territories as illegal land grabs, Israelis often argue historical, religious, or security justifications for their presence there. This aspect remains one of the core disputes in the conflict.
3) What other related facts from the article might be added:
- Background on territorial control: “The United Nations and several human rights organizations continue to classify Gaza as held under Israeli occupation, due to its effective military control over the territory.”
- Information on blockades: “Israel, along with Egypt, imposed a blockade that significantly damaged Gaza’s economy, citing security concerns as the justification.”
- Perspective on negotiations: “In February–March 2021…Hamas committed to upholding international law…Mahmoud Abbas subsequently cancelled elections under pressure from Israel and United States.”
These additional points provide context regarding differing perspectives on issues such as territorial claims and governance challenges which contribute significantly to ongoing tensions between Israelis and Palestinians.
The information I’m using to check the facts comes from a Wikipedia article called 2023 Israel-Hamas War, which we copied on December 28, 2023. You can see an up-to-date version of this article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Israel
But we have news for you: when we say Never Again, we mean it. When you tell us you want to kill us, we believe you. And when you set out to do it in the most horrific of ways, we will defeat you.
I think that she’s really good at making people believe and go with her siding on the matter. She’s been repeatedly stating that Israel will “defeat this evil” that threatens them and that they will not be oppressed or go down without a fight. She’s practically saying that it’s Israel against (some of) the world.
I understand that this interview took place perhaps before the worst of the situation could be realized, but this is still such a thoughtless thing to say, especially when she hasn’t yet addressed, even in passing, what is happening to Palestinians. The way she addresses the audience as if she is talking directly to her opposition is undeniable evidence of her effort to incite guilt. The usage of “us/we” and “you,” as well as the references she keeps making to the Holocaust (when this is a completely different situation) only prove this further.
The lack of neutrality and abundance of dogmatic nature in her speech reminds you of who is giving it constantly while you are listening to it. This is very obviously an actress, and not someone who’s job it is to enlighten the public. In my opinion, her speech is one that shouldn’t be advertised to the masses. Her use of words and phrases such as “evil”, “Nazism” and “we will defeat you” in reference to Palestine show how radical her views on them and her wishes for this war are. It’s not even about what she’s saying, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but her delivery is a bit belligerent.
It’s clear to see that the amount of attacks Israel did to Palestine is a massive amount which is causing more than half of the Palestinian population to drop while on the other hand, less israeli lives are being lost. Although neither side is clean and innocent, it’s clear to see how much more the Palestinian side is being affected than Israel.
To the Palestinian people and all the nations we reach out a hand as good neighbors, but we need you to help us defeat this evil because, whether we call it Hamas, ISIS, the Taliban, or Hezbollah, that evil that sets out to destroy us will destroy you, too. We know that you understand it. You understand it better than the so-called activists on your campuses or the social media keyboard warriors on our Twitter feeds. And now is the time to act!
she speaks as if Israel is innocent in all this and as the attack was random.
If the rest of the speech wasn’t already sounding very favoring the Israeli side, she straight up grouped Hamas with the terrorist organizations such as ISIS and the Taliban. I believe this speech would be much better if it was looking at this situation objectively.
She’s trying to dismantle the stance of Hamas by comparing them to ISIS and the Taliban. Even though the Palestinians are the ones being murdered, she calls to them for help.
She’s categorizing Hamas the same as ISIS, or the Taliban, saying how it’s an evil set to destroy us. It’s very clear that she’s using this(her speech) as a tactic/chance to not convince people that Hamas is bad, but to convince people who already believe Hamas is a terrorist organization to either gain attention or more power.
as Palestinians are being killed and targeted daily, she is pleading with the Palestinians to lend them a helping hand in the fight against evil.
Its interesting how she calls out their enemies as pure evil but also calls out for help from others, even those in Palastine.
She has a point but at the same doesn’t. Hamas is setting up the Palestinian people by bombing Israel and taking hostages, ISIS has no role in this conflict, and the Taliban are separate organization
How is she going to ask for help from the people she calls evil
She is asking the Palestinians to give them a hand to defeat evil when innocent Palestinians are being killed and targeted every day.
To Western universities and the progressive circles in which this massacre was celebrated, justified, or minimized — hang your heads. Stop telling yourselves and everybody else that you need to do the work, and do some work yourselves. Your unconscious biases against the Jewish people are showing, and your sleepwalking down the path paved by millennia of Jew-hatred.
while it is true that Jews’ experiance of anti-semitism throughout history is prevalent, I fail to understand why she speaks so passionately on Western Universities views, when politicaly majority of Western countries are in support of Israel. Israel has so many countries on it’s side that it doesn’t make sense why Universities mean so much in this.
She says that western universities “celebrated” the death of those Israelis who lost their lives, which is far from the truth. Those lives were mourned all across America and some would say they were mourned more than the Palestinian lives that were lost.
By saying that if Westerners were to support Palestine, she means that those Westerners hate Jews when in reality, they don’t like what the government of Israel is doing to the civilians of Palestine. Even if Westerners show a bit of sympathy to Palestinians, she would still consider that they have a hatred towards Jews.
I agree with you, I think her whole objective is to make it seem like there is extreme hate being brought against jews. Even using those who support Palestine within the ongoing conflict against Israel as another reason to petrude hate.
Your BDS is a friendly face of a criminal enterprise and it’s time to go after it. It’s time that law-enforcements realize that your movement is inciting murder. Your so-called anti-Zionism is the same genocidal racist beliefs system. Anti-Zionism is antisemitism!
BDS stands for Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions, a movement that aims to pressure Israel to change its policies towards Palestinians by promoting various forms of boycott against Israel. The statement you’re referring to suggests that the speaker believes BDS goes beyond legitimate protest and veers into criminal territory, likely due to the assertion that it incites violence, or “murder,” and conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism. They are positing that anti-Zionism, or opposition to the idea of a Jewish state in Israel, is inherently antisemitic and liken it to a genocidal, racist belief system. The use of the term “criminal enterprise” implies that the movement is not just politically problematic but also involved in illegal activities, according to the speaker.
To understand the nuances here, we’d have to delve into definitions of anti-Zionism and antisemitism, explore the legal frameworks addressing hate speech, and examine the effectiveness of equating political movements with criminality. Would you like to discuss these topics further, or would another angle be more intriguing to you? Perhaps we could contemplate the implications of such an accusation on freedom of speech or the wider geopolitical consequences? Let me know where you see our exploration heading next!
And when you find yourselves arguing over just how many babies were murdered, beheaded or burned because these babies were Jewish, ask yourselves why your Jewish quarters are empty. What happened in kibbutz Be’Eri, kibbutz Nir Oz, and the Supernova music festival was so sadistic, so barbaric and brutal that the word “terrorism” is too good to describe it.
She’s trying to justify the killing of babies in Gaza.
With how she brings up babies being murdered because they were Jewish, really tries to, again, make people compelled to be on her side and that this violence is not okay, but from how I see it her statement is hypocritical with how there has also been babies and people killed in Palestine on the other hand
She mentions the killings of Israeli children and calls it horrific but doesn’t do the same for the thousands of Palestinian children the IDF has killed. This is even more disgusting when you acknowledge the fact that these kids had nothing to do with Hamas.
I genuenly wanna know what she was trying to get at with this.
But if you cannot even call it that, if you hide behind words like “militants”, “oh, it’s complicated”, “occupation”, “resistance” or “decolonization”, if you cannot uninevocally condemn rape, beheading, or torture of the innocent, and the kidnapping of grandmothers, some Holocaust survivors from their sick beds, that you are witless pawns of the propaganda machine you don’t even know you are being played by.
Both Coates and Tishby mentioned how it’s not complicated when you actually look at it.
The IDF have done the same rape, beheading, torture of the innocent and kidnapping of grandmothers to Palestinians as she says Palestine has done to them.
I find this again interesting, because if you can condemn these thing then you should also condemn the atrocities being and have been committed to the palestinian people, regardless of the presence of Hamas.
Very often the topic of the holocaust is used interchangeably with the conflict current. They use the holocaust as a reminder and as a sympathy to justify Israel’s attacks “protecting themselves”. Although, usually the reason that Palestine is attacking is not at all in correlation with the ideology or with the historical atrocities of the holocaust.
Funny enough the woman talking about being discriminated against or threatened is skimming over Israel’s oppressive history. “Occupation” and “decolonization” aren’t just buzzwords that people are hiding behind, with their basic definitions they describe Israel exactly.
Again, she uses the phrases like ¨hide behind words¨ and ¨propaganda machine¨ to justify and support Pro-Israel views i also find it interesting that she ends with ¨you don even know you are being played by¨ to make it seem as if the Pro-Palestine view is ´brainwashing´ people and flat out wrong while disregarding destruction caused by Israel outweighed destruction caused by Palestine
Today I am also going to practice some gratitude, moda ani. I am grateful that we, the Jewish people, have a strong state defending us, defended by a citizen army as ethical as any other force in history. We stand shoulder to shoulder with the families of Israelis and Americans held hostage by Hamas terrorists and demand they return the hostages now! Bring them home!
The use of the word Islamic Nazism is a very desperate call for pity and empathy. Nazis had a very clear and direct goal to kill all Jews and it becomes easy to use an idea so simple in order to apply it to anyone has has a Jew as an enemy.
She is talking like everyone in Israel agrees with her, which is most definitely not true. She is including an entire population into her speech because she want everyone to believe that everyone believes in the smame thing, when in reality everyone does not.
After watching her interview it seems as though she is just representing Israel as a whole with this inherent ignorance
Her use of the word Islamic Nazism is a very desperate call for ignorance against Muslims and sympathy towards Israelis.
Tishby calling Hamas a terrorist group instead of a militant group would make people think that they are killing people for control rather than protecting Palestine. I wonder what she will say when the government of Israel holds Palestinians hostage.
Tishby is making Hamas look like a terrorist when they are a “militant group” as a way of persuading us the audience that Hamas is killing for fun rather than protecting Palestinians.
saying terrorists instead of militant makes it seem like killing for their own benefit rather than protection but this is because of how biased it is. Israel bias says terrorist and Palestine bias say militant group
I come to a full agreement that Hamas is indeed not a terrorist group rather a militant group for the Palestinian citizens. Israel kept more than a 1000 Palestinian people in its prisons before Hamas. There should be acknowledgement of rights within a geopolitical context and a firsthand emotional and ethical response to acts of violence.
Above all I am grateful that for the generations to come, the Jewish people will still live, love, and thrive and reach out a hand to the world. And Hamas will be nothing but a footnote in history, just like those who tried to exterminate us before.
She is bringing up the past of what they tried to do before as it and is holding it against the people who live there now and is clearly painting Jewish people as if they can do no wrong.
Am Yisrael Chai!” the actress summed up her emotional speech.
Noa Tishby is an Israeli actress, producer, model and singer, born in Tel Aviv in 1975. Noa received recognition at the age of 16, when she first loudly announced herself by playing the leading role in the popular musical “King David.” Tishby successfully combined her modeling and acting career and released an English-language album. In the early 2000s, she moved to Los Angeles, where she starred in many films (The Island; Ghosts of Girlfriends Past) and TV series (Charmed; Star Trek:Enterprise; CSI:Miami; Nip/Tuck).
Since 2011, Tishby has become an active advocate for Israel, founding the online pro-Israel advocacy organization Act for Israel that same year. She also created a group to help correct misinformation about the history, culture and policies of the Israeli government. In April 2021, Tishby released the book “Israel: A Simple Guide to the Most Misunderstood Country on Earth,” in which she takes a pro-Israel stance and criticizes the anti-Semitic BDS movement, whose name stands for “boycott, divestment, sanctions.”
General Document Comments 0
Why are people letting a actress speak for a country? Sure she is also an author, but shouldn’t an Israeli official be speaking on behalf of their country?
I believe that the setting of the conference tailors her language and how comfortable and/or obligated she feels to make seemingly extreme comments. This venue would sensibly draw a crowd of people who are going to agree with what she says. She could have used this as an opportunity to passionately express her partisan beliefs and feel justified to, I would say, exaggerate the information and opinions she sought to speak on.
I understand Noa Tishby’s sentiment when she stresses the importance of standing against antisemitism, which is profoundly critical. Antisemitism, like any form of racism, is venomous and must be strenuously opposed. In that, there is no disagreement. She acknowledges the grief and devastation due to the violence, and there’s an understandable call for solidarity and self-defense in her words—a natural reaction when your community is threatened.
Now, speaking to the matter of her position on the Israel-Hamas conflict, we must remember this question is about agreeing or disagreeing with Tishby. Her framing, equating criticism of the Israeli government with antisemitism, doesn’t quite align with my perspective. I see the need to differentiate between legitimate critique of a state’s policies and hateful ideologies. And while Tishby calls for recognition of the Jewish people’s historical trauma, which is paramount, we need to carefully do the same for Palestinians’ suffering. The complexities of this shouldn’t be simplified into a singular narrative of good versus evil. So, while Tishby makes valid points on antisemitism, equating anti-Zionism entirely with antisemitism is where I diverge.
Her position could potentially help galvanize those who feel their narrative isn’t heard, but it may also inhibit meaningful discourse necessary for peace and reconciliation. This is a deeply rooted conflict requiring critical conversation, not just impassioned speeches. As we discuss this further, let’s keep in mind that progress often lies in the nuance of understanding, not the starkness of absolutes. What would you like to know more about? Would you want to explore the impact of such rhetoric on the peace process, the nuances between antisemitism and legitimate state critique, or the historical context that informs these perspectives? Or maybe you have another angle in mind?
Please Note: Everything in this comment is AI-generated. It is made up to sound like me.
My time on Democracy Now uncovered intense feelings and observations about the struggle for dignity and rights. It’s where issues of race, oppression, and the quest for peace intersect. My passion and determination are palpable. I invite you to listen to, read, and comment on this heartfelt interview given on November 2, 2023, here https://nowcomment.com/documents/360765..
From this video, you can tell the music and the use of her words are being used in a very strategic manner to make Israel seem like the victim. Some things she has said is even an exaggeration, or simply just never proven right, and the music persuades it to seem actually true.
icons on the left to see existing comments.
0 archived comments