N1BOS — broadcast
20260810 210000 UTC
523 transcript segments
Google Cloud Speech-to-Text API (Chirp) + Gemini 2.5 Flash Non-Thinking
Data courtesy of The GDELT Project (https://www.gdeltproject.org/), from the Internet Archive TV News Archive.
Machine transcription. Treat it as a searchable index of what was broadcast, not a verbatim quotation record.

[00:00:30] Good evening. This is a new edition of the show Outside the Box. More than two years have
[00:00:33] passed since the fateful October 7th, a date that etched itself into global consciousness
[00:00:37] as a point of complete moral and political
[00:00:41] breakdown. We are still trying to
[00:00:43] understand what actually happened, from the brutal,
[00:00:46] inexcusable attack by Hamas militants
[00:00:50] on Israeli civilians, to the retaliation which, in
[00:00:53] its scale, duration, and systematic nature, and which can
[00:00:57] be inferred from the conclusions of the International Commission
[00:01:00] of the United Nations, has taken on the contours of genocide against the population of Gaza. In
[00:01:04] that time span, measured not only in days, months,
[00:01:08] years, but in destroyed lives, ruined settlements and
[00:01:11] cities, the world watched as the lines between security
[00:01:15] and revenge blurred, and how international law is relativized
[00:01:19] and human dignity is turned into a collateral
[00:01:23] category. The two-state solution, which for decades
[00:01:26] figured as the only reasonable horizon, today appears
[00:01:30] both necessary and almost impossible. Necessary because
[00:01:34] without political and territorial equality, there is no
[00:01:37] minimal security for either Israelis or
[00:01:40] Palestinians. Impossible, because the facts on the ground,
[00:01:43] the colonization of the area by settlements and the spiral
[00:01:46] of violence make this idea more of a declaration than
[00:01:50] an implementable plan. Therefore, we ask if the two-state
[00:01:53] solution is just a mantra of diplomatic speakers or
[00:01:57] if it still exists as a realistic architecture of peace? Tonight,
[00:02:00] in the show Outside the Box, we deal with what is echoing louder and louder
[00:02:04] within Israeli society itself: how this time
[00:02:07] of war, destruction, and international condemnation is forming
[00:02:11] a new self-image in Israeli society. Has
[00:02:14] the moral price of retaliation become too heavy, even for a country that
[00:02:18] justifies its security policies with historical trauma,
[00:02:22] and is Benjamin Netanyahu's government, with the support of
[00:02:25] radical partners, responsible for the greatest
[00:02:28] strategic and ethnic catastrophe in recent Israeli
[00:02:32] history? While one part of society stands behind the government, the other part increasingly
[00:02:35] clearly states: this is not a path to security,
[00:02:39] but a path to moral destruction. Stay with
[00:02:42] us.
[00:02:52] The recently concluded ceasefire offers a respite, but does not remove
[00:02:55] fundamental questions, because, according to reports since its entry
[00:02:59] into force, hundreds of violations have been recorded, hundreds
[00:03:02] of dead and wounded. It is a ceasefire that is definitely
[00:03:05] not yet peace, but
[00:03:08] some transitional point on the horizon
[00:03:11] of uncertainty. Tonight, on the show Outside the Box, for the second time
[00:03:15] since the war began, Israeli journalist Gideon Levy, one
[00:03:19] of the most provocative, most consistent, and to many,
[00:03:23] most controversial critics of Israeli policy towards
[00:03:25] Palestinians, an intellectual who refuses to agree to ideological
[00:03:29] reflexive reactions,
[00:03:32] who forces us to think outside
[00:03:35] national and ethnic narratives. His texts
[00:03:39] raise questions that many avoid. Tonight
[00:03:42] we will go through some. Good evening, Mr. Levy, thank you for
[00:03:46] speaking to
[00:03:46] N1.
[00:03:51] Good evening, thank you for inviting me.
[00:03:55] I listened to you recently and I must admit that
[00:03:58] the level of uh,
[00:04:02] how should I put it, moral self-incrimination that
[00:04:05] you express, especially when you say that all Israelis,
[00:04:08] including you, bear responsibility. What is it in
[00:04:12] Israeli society, media, and political culture, in
[00:04:15] your opinion, that allowed such collective blindness and
[00:04:19] denial to be normalized to such
[00:04:23] an extent that criticism in newspapers like yours
[00:04:26] is almost perceived as treason?
[00:04:38] It's interesting that you started with this question, it's a crucial
[00:04:41] question for us to understand
[00:04:45] how Israelis live
[00:04:48] peacefully with themselves, when just an hour
[00:04:51] away a disaster is unfolding. And
[00:04:55] I'm glad you mentioned the media, because
[00:04:58] the media is the answer to this. What happened in
[00:05:01] this
[00:05:02] war
[00:05:09] is that the Israeli media, without
[00:05:13] government pressure, did not
[00:05:16] report on the atrocities in
[00:05:19] Gaza, not because of ideology, but
[00:05:22] because they know that the Israeli public doesn't want to
[00:05:25] see it, and if viewers and readers don't
[00:05:29] want to see and hear it, then they won't
[00:05:33] show it. Apart from what I
[00:05:36] published in some smaller media, you couldn't
[00:05:40] see Gaza on television,
[00:05:42] on the news. What you watched in Israel
[00:05:46] was not watched. That's how
[00:05:50] people's brains were
[00:05:53] washed.
[00:05:56] It was reported in a way that showed that no atrocities were happening,
[00:05:59] that everything was in accordance with
[00:06:03] international law, that it was a defensive war,
[00:06:06] that 60, over
[00:06:09] 60,000 people killed
[00:06:12] was a proportional
[00:06:15] uh reaction to October
[00:06:18] 7th, that
[00:06:21] 20,000 killed children is also
[00:06:25] proportional and that they are part
[00:06:28] of the moral index that we
[00:06:30] in Israel invented for ourselves. All of this
[00:06:33] together created a situation in which
[00:06:36] Israel after October 7th
[00:06:40] does not want to watch, does not want to see Gaza, does not want to
[00:06:43] hear about Gaza, shows no empathy,
[00:06:47] no humanity towards that terrible
[00:06:51] catastrophe. Let's stay with
[00:06:55] the media. So, it seems that there is a sharp division
[00:06:58] between a few, but
[00:07:01] intellectually strong critical media like
[00:07:03] Haaretz and the mass media, these deeply
[00:07:06] entrenched media that reproduce the narrative
[00:07:10] of the government and the security establishment.
[00:07:13] How do you see the balance of power between these two
[00:07:16] universes of information? Do critical media
[00:07:19] even have the power to shape public opinion, or is their influence
[00:07:23] limited to intellectual enclaves
[00:07:27] that essentially rarely change the dominant political
[00:07:30] dynamic?
[00:07:38] I would say the latter.
[00:07:43] Haaretz
[00:07:45] is the oldest
[00:07:48] Israeli newspaper. It is published in Hebrew and English.
[00:07:51] It is well-established, but the mass
[00:07:54] media, there are many more of them than
[00:07:58] Haaretz, they are much more influential than
[00:08:01] Haaretz, both television channels
[00:08:04] and on social media, but also
[00:08:07] other print media.
[00:08:10] Haaretz tries, but cannot change
[00:08:13] the mainstream, and the mainstream brainwashes,
[00:08:17] goes with the flow, tells
[00:08:20] Israelis that there is no problem, that the whole
[00:08:23] world is anti-Semitic, everyone hates us,
[00:08:27] such things,
[00:08:30] which plays into the hands of Israelis, but has
[00:08:33] nothing to do with reporting.
[00:08:36] Hmm.
[00:08:39] Uh, when I simply listen to you on... I can ask you
[00:08:43] what comes to my mind as a logical
[00:08:47] question, and it concerns precisely those claims about the almost
[00:08:50] unanimous stance among Israeli residents. Still,
[00:08:54] allow me to mention that strong peace bloc, organizations
[00:08:58] like B'Tselem, Breaking the Silence, and others who
[00:09:02] believe in and advocate a two-state solution, but do not
[00:09:06] see a convincing peace partner in Hamas or parts of the Palestinian
[00:09:09] power structures. What about them? What status do they have?" in society and media.
[00:09:23] I appreciate them, I love them, but they are
[00:09:27] small, and they are
[00:09:30] delegitimized in mainstream media,
[00:09:34] so they are hardly written about, not
[00:09:38] reported on. You mentioned some NGOs two months
[00:09:41] ago. A large press
[00:09:44] conference was held. The two largest
[00:09:48] human rights organizations,
[00:09:51] B'Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights,
[00:09:55] both said that what was happening in Gaza
[00:09:58] was genocide, and this was cited worldwide, but
[00:10:02] Israeli media did not report from that
[00:10:05] press conference, except for Haaretz. Nothing that was
[00:10:09] said there, which was both concerning and interesting, nothing
[00:10:13] was conveyed to the Israeli
[00:10:16] public. Therefore, it is very difficult to fight
[00:10:19] against an entire coalition when
[00:10:22] everyone is satisfied, because Israelis want to
[00:10:25] know, and the media
[00:10:28] caters to
[00:10:32] their needs.
[00:10:34] Haaretz does what it can, but it is not enough. When we talk
[00:10:38] about the war in Gaza, global discourse moves
[00:10:42] between two extremes: absolute
[00:10:45] identification with Israeli fears
[00:10:48] and absolute identification with
[00:10:51] Palestinian suffering. Is it possible
[00:10:55] to imagine an ethical space between these two
[00:10:58] poles, a space in which we can simultaneously acknowledge the victims
[00:11:01] of October 7th, so that it doesn't become a moral
[00:11:05] alibi for the destruction of Gaza, especially not the killing of innocent
[00:11:08] people?
[00:11:15] I think that is precisely what every
[00:11:19] conscientious person
[00:11:21] should adopt as their stance. That is... Precisely
[00:11:25] the right stance. October 7th happened, it was terrible.
[00:11:29] 1200 Israelis were
[00:11:32] killed. I was there,
[00:11:35] I was there two days later, on October 9th,
[00:11:39] on the spot. What I saw there, I had never
[00:11:42] seen before, maybe in Sarajevo in '93,
[00:11:45] although I'm not sure even there. I was in
[00:11:49] Sarajevo during the siege, but in any case, it was
[00:11:52] terrible and it should be... judged
[00:11:56] and it should be publicly condemned, and the whole world
[00:11:59] should hear about it. Then
[00:12:03] the war came, which very
[00:12:06] quickly
[00:12:10] went beyond, exceeded all
[00:12:13] proportions.
[00:12:16] And from Gaza, which is
[00:12:20] home to 2.3 million
[00:12:23] people, mostly refugees in the second and third generation,
[00:12:26] you can condemn
[00:12:30] October 7th and fight
[00:12:33] against it, but understand that there is no
[00:12:36] proportionality.
[00:12:38] 1200 innocent
[00:12:41] people who were killed in the south
[00:12:44] of Israel in a brutal way, on the other hand,
[00:12:48] you have the killing
[00:12:51] of 20,000 children, a thousand
[00:12:55] babies. What is the connection between
[00:12:58] these two things and
[00:13:00] self-defense? What do you see
[00:13:04] as the greatest psychological
[00:13:07] or spiritual mechanism that today prevents a good
[00:13:11] portion of Israeli society from seeing Palestinians as people
[00:13:15] with equal status and dignity? Can this
[00:13:18] mechanism ever be dismantled
[00:13:20] from within?
[00:13:24] It
[00:13:28] is very difficult, it is very difficult
[00:13:32] to maintain a brutal occupation, like the Israeli
[00:13:35] occupation, for almost 50, 60
[00:13:38] years. Often it is barbaric,
[00:13:42] brutal, not legitimate. It is difficult
[00:13:45] to maintain that kind
[00:13:48] of occupation, and at the same time understand that
[00:13:51] the victims of that occupation are human beings
[00:13:55] like us. Like many other phenomena in
[00:13:58] history,
[00:14:00] phenomena of occupation,
[00:14:02] extermination, first
[00:14:06] you have to build for yourself
[00:14:09] an inhuman image
[00:14:13] of the enemy or the occupied or
[00:14:15] the oppressed. In this way you legitimize what
[00:14:19] you are doing. This dehumanization,
[00:14:21] demonization of Palestinians began long
[00:14:25] before October 7th. It lasted throughout all the years
[00:14:28] of occupation, constantly saying that all Palestinians
[00:14:32] are terrorists, that they are born to kill, that
[00:14:35] they want only one thing, which is to push the Jews into
[00:14:39] the sea. One after another. That is what
[00:14:43] you need to maintain
[00:14:45] the occupation. I have spent my whole life
[00:14:49] trying to break that vicious circle,
[00:14:53] trying to humanize Palestinians. I write about the victims,
[00:14:57] at least once a week I go to the occupied
[00:15:00] territories and write stories about the victims, for
[00:15:04] 40 years. But it's hard to fight against that
[00:15:06] machinery. What is the
[00:15:10] balance of power within parliament?
[00:15:13] Do there exist opposition political
[00:15:16] structures
[00:15:18] with which you, as the voice
[00:15:21] of the intellectual community, could discuss problems
[00:15:25] in a way that you are not
[00:15:29] excluded, or rather, not eliminated from the conversation at the very
[00:15:32] start?
[00:15:41] First, they eliminate me. I am on
[00:15:43] television. I used to appear often on Israeli
[00:15:47] television. In the last two years, they invited me only
[00:15:51] twice on Israeli
[00:15:53] television. Yet, there was a time when I was
[00:15:56] almost every evening on
[00:15:59] some television worldwide. But in Israel,
[00:16:03] no one ordered them not to invite me, but they
[00:16:06] knew that if I participated in the program.
[00:16:10] As for opposition parties, I do not
[00:16:14] see any of them offering a real
[00:16:18] alternative. None of them are against
[00:16:21] the war. None of them have said a
[00:16:25] word about genocide. None of
[00:16:27] them advocate
[00:16:31] or strive to stop the occupation,
[00:16:34] apartheid. They are much closer to the government
[00:16:38] in their basic positions than it
[00:16:41] even seems
[00:16:42] from the outside.
[00:16:46] They only fight against Netanyahu personally. Many
[00:16:50] Israelis want him to step down, but that is not
[00:16:53] ideology, that is a personal
[00:16:55] matter. You received one
[00:16:59] of the most significant Israeli journalism awards, the Sokolov
[00:17:02] Prize, in the year 2021. This implies
[00:17:06] in some circles..." in Israel, there is exceptional
[00:17:10] recognition for your journalistic
[00:17:13] engagement. Yet, critics fault
[00:17:16] you, I came across this while preparing for this
[00:17:20] conversation, that you perhaps do not sufficiently take into account
[00:17:24] the fact that since its inception
[00:17:26] in 1948 of the last century, Israel
[00:17:30] has faced a combination of hostile states,
[00:17:33] irregular armed groups, rocket
[00:17:36] attacks, and calls for its
[00:17:38] destruction.
[00:17:47] First, I received the award, and I was grateful,
[00:17:50] it touched me, but it was 2021 or
[00:17:54] 2022. I'm not sure I would have
[00:17:57] received
[00:17:59] that award in 2025. I am almost certain I would not
[00:18:02] have. Yes, so, of course, there are
[00:18:06] Israelis, unfortunately. Since October 7th,
[00:18:10] that number has decreased, but there
[00:18:13] are still brave
[00:18:16] Israelis who
[00:18:20] speak publicly, who agree with me, who
[00:18:24] are interested in what I will write, but
[00:18:26] unfortunately they are a small and increasingly
[00:18:30] smaller minority, and
[00:18:33] therefore those awards,
[00:18:38] even if I received them, do not
[00:18:41] reflect the atmosphere in
[00:18:44] Israel today. Today Israel is more
[00:18:47] nationalistic, more racist than
[00:18:50] it has ever been, and I am much lonelier today
[00:18:54] than ever before. But I am not the story;
[00:18:58] the story is the suffering of the Palestinian people and
[00:19:01] above all the question of how to get out of
[00:19:04] this. In your text, there is
[00:19:08] a fascinating tension. On the one
[00:19:12] hand, deep humanism and identification with
[00:19:15] Palestinian suffering, and on the other hand, a rigid
[00:19:19] diagnosis of Israeli power structures. How do you reconcile these
[00:19:22] two positions? Do you believe that moral
[00:19:26] sensitivity towards Palestinians is possible only if the
[00:19:29] narrative of Israeli security is rejected, or do you believe that it is
[00:19:32] possible to simultaneously acknowledge Jewish
[00:19:36] trauma and condemn Israeli policy?
[00:19:49] I acknowledge Jewish trauma as long as it is
[00:19:53] not manipulated, as long as it is not
[00:19:56] exploited
[00:20:01] for illegal, illegitimate purposes, which is
[00:20:05] often the case. I part of Israel. I was born
[00:20:08] here, I will die here. I am
[00:20:12] part of everything that
[00:20:15] I, along with all Israelis, go through. I go through everything
[00:20:18] they go through. There is no doubt about that. But I am not willing to
[00:20:22] justify everything or anything because
[00:20:26] of what we have been through or what we are going through. And another thing I
[00:20:30] want to emphasize
[00:20:31] is
[00:20:35] that there are many voices in the Arab world, among
[00:20:38] Palestinians, which are
[00:20:42] hard to listen to if you are an Israeli, who call for
[00:20:46] the destruction of Israel, who threaten. But someone
[00:20:50] has to ask the question why they
[00:20:52] say that. When the Secretary-General
[00:20:56] of the UN said that
[00:20:59] there was a context for
[00:21:02] the crimes of October 7th,
[00:21:04] 2023,
[00:21:06] Israel condemned him, declared him persona non grata,
[00:21:10] but he spoke the truth. Yes, there is a context. It doesn't
[00:21:14] justify the crime, but we must understand
[00:21:18] that everything has its reason. Let's
[00:21:22] deal with the reasons, not just
[00:21:24] the consequences.
[00:21:27] The slogan that has become a global symbol
[00:21:31] of resistance is "Free Palestine from the river to
[00:21:34] the sea." Uh, it is also
[00:21:37] a fierce subject
[00:21:39] of controversy. Uh, some interpret it as
[00:21:43] a call for the liberation of territory from military
[00:21:46] domination and apartheid. Others interpret it
[00:21:50] as a call for the elimination of Israel. How do you
[00:21:53] read this phrase? Do you believe that it is
[00:21:56] possible that within the same slogan,
[00:21:59] emancipatory and destructive impulses
[00:22:02] coexist, some who actually desire
[00:22:05] equality and political freedom for Palestinians and others who perhaps
[00:22:09] carry elements of the very negation
[00:22:11] of Israel?
[00:22:18] "to both exist."
[00:22:20] Yes, both exist. As you know, I don't know in what
[00:22:24] proportions, but there are those,
[00:22:27] anti-Semitism, I don't deny that anti-Semitism
[00:22:31] exists, and many express their
[00:22:34] anti-Semitism in that way, but there are many
[00:22:38] conscientious people who believe that
[00:22:41] between the river and
[00:22:44] the sea, everyone must
[00:22:47] be free, and with
[00:22:50] that I can wholeheartedly agree. That is precisely my
[00:22:53] dream, my vision: equality
[00:22:56] between the river and the sea. Israel should
[00:23:00] be one democratic state, but whoever
[00:23:03] has another idea that can be implemented, I will gladly
[00:23:07] listen to it, but the call
[00:23:09] for freedom from the river to the sea does not
[00:23:12] necessarily mean the extermination of Israel. Yes, it
[00:23:16] means the
[00:23:19] end of the Jewish state and the establishment
[00:23:22] of another state that will be a democracy for all,
[00:23:26] for both Palestinians and Israelis. That is not
[00:23:29] extermination. That is called democracy in every
[00:23:33] language.
[00:23:36] Does that suggest that
[00:23:39] the two-state solution is truly
[00:23:42] dead?
[00:23:48] "I will be so happy."
[00:23:52] I would like to be wrong, but I think
[00:23:56] that with 700
[00:23:58] thousand Jewish
[00:24:01] settlers in the West Bank who have
[00:24:04] taken all the land, especially
[00:24:08] in the past two years, the facts
[00:24:11] on the ground are such that I do not see how any
[00:24:15] Israeli government will evacuate them from there in
[00:24:18] that context." I think
[00:24:22] the train has left for a two-state
[00:24:25] solution. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe I would
[00:24:29] be happy if someone proved to me that it is still an option, because that would be
[00:24:33] the best solution, to divide into two states,
[00:24:36] one Jewish, one Palestinian. But if that is not
[00:24:40] possible, as I think it is not possible, then we should
[00:24:44] stop talking about an impossible solution
[00:24:47] and start thinking about an alternative.
[00:24:50] Because for 20, 30, 40 years
[00:24:54] we have been talking about two states, nothing has moved. In
[00:24:58] reality, we are now further from that solution than ever
[00:25:02] before. We are further from it, because
[00:25:05] there are more and more settlers, Jewish settlers
[00:25:09] in the West Bank,
[00:25:12] which is the last place left where Palestinians could
[00:25:15] have their own state. Therefore, why don't we
[00:25:18] try something else? Democracy,
[00:25:21] equality, one person, one vote, because
[00:25:25] for 55 years now these two peoples have been living in one
[00:25:28] state. Let that state be democratic, not
[00:25:32] an apartheid state.
[00:25:35] You say that there are increasingly more
[00:25:37] settlers, settlements in the West
[00:25:41] Bank. Where do these people come from? Do they come of their own
[00:25:45] will, or are they guided by
[00:25:49] powerful political
[00:25:50] structures?
[00:25:59] Firstly, we cannot separate them from
[00:26:02] the army, from the police, and from
[00:26:05] the government. All these organs
[00:26:08] protect them, support them
[00:26:11] with money, with budget, with protection, and
[00:26:15] enable them to settle there. They come
[00:26:19] from various places, but what truly
[00:26:22] encourages them, it's not that the government sends them there,
[00:26:25] they are partly
[00:26:28] Jews who believe in crazy ideas that only, for example,
[00:26:32] Jews have the right to live in this land, that Jews
[00:26:36] are the chosen people and
[00:26:39] that they have the right to do whatever
[00:26:43] they want, that Palestinians are nothing, trash, they say.
[00:26:46] So they are motivated by very radical
[00:26:50] racism and nationalism which
[00:26:52] is in combination with
[00:26:55] religion, because mostly they are religious, especially the
[00:26:59] violent ones. They have no boundaries, they are very
[00:27:04] violent, very dangerous, and things are getting worse and worse, and
[00:27:07] the government and the army, by not
[00:27:10] stopping them, become partners in
[00:27:13] that project. Yes, religious
[00:27:16] identifications are often actually used as weapons
[00:27:20] in geopolitical narratives. How, Mr. Levy, can we avoid
[00:27:24] the Palestinian struggle from being
[00:27:27] reduced simply to Islam, and Israel
[00:27:30] to the question of Judaism, instead of talking
[00:27:33] about rights, statehood, security,
[00:27:37] democracy, universal principles, which
[00:27:40] you emphasize?
[00:27:42] You know something
[00:27:50] about religious turmoil in your part of the world,
[00:27:54] and you know how difficult
[00:27:57] it is. Until a few
[00:28:01] years ago, the
[00:28:04] conflict between
[00:28:06] Israelis and Palestinians
[00:28:10] was mainly a political and territorial conflict
[00:28:14] that should have been resolved at that
[00:28:17] stage. It was not resolved mainly because
[00:28:21] of Israel, not only because of Israel, but predominantly because of
[00:28:24] Israel, because Israel was not ready to
[00:28:28] give Palestinians their rights, and
[00:28:30] now it is entering a new phase
[00:28:33] where fundamentalist,
[00:28:37] extremist, religious actors on both
[00:28:40] sides lead the main discourse. This is much worse,
[00:28:44] because when you deal with fundamentalists, there is no
[00:28:46] room for compromise. The word
[00:28:49] compromise
[00:28:51] is completely foreign to them. They don't know what that
[00:28:54] means. Then things are much worse, and I think that
[00:28:58] now we are entering that phase where I have
[00:29:02] my fundamentalists, my jihadists, and they have
[00:29:06] their fundamentalists.
[00:29:10] they are still not the majority on both sides
[00:29:13] and that's why it's important to find
[00:29:16] a solution now, let me briefly
[00:29:19] return to the topic we
[00:29:23] only partially opened,
[00:29:26] that is anti-Semitism, Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek
[00:29:30] says that as long as there are people like you... you, Mr. Levi,
[00:29:33] anti-Semitism has no chance, do you
[00:29:37] sometimes feel that
[00:29:39] you carry on your back the burden of moral
[00:29:42] testimony of your own society, do you have
[00:29:46] the feeling that history might have unintentionally put you in that role?
[00:30:02] a big role for my small shoulders, I don't believe
[00:30:06] I'm that important, I'm not being falsely modest, but I'm
[00:30:10] not that influential, that important in any
[00:30:13] direction, I'm a journalist, I
[00:30:17] try to do my job to
[00:30:20] report, to inform
[00:30:23] Israelis about what's happening in the occupied
[00:30:27] territories and to re-humanize
[00:30:31] Palestinians for... Israelis, you know what,
[00:30:34] Palestinians are not what they are
[00:30:37] presented to be, because Israelis and Palestinians no longer
[00:30:41] meet. I have my own moral
[00:30:44] compass, of course and that
[00:30:47] motivates me, but in many
[00:30:50] cases I am accused of the opposite, that
[00:30:54] my, that anti-Semites
[00:30:58] use my.