It’s astonishing many organizations in wealthy democracies are terrified of the slightest criticism of Israel’s genocide.
Even the Israeli government pretends to be sad that journalists die covering wars. They’re more extreme than this?
Because once that door swings open a little bit… who knows what might bear some scrutiny?
Who made the clothes you’re wearing? Or your phone? Were they a slave? A child? Are they even still alive, or do they have cancer because of the factory where they worked? Do their parents miss them, if they’re gone?
What happened to make the chicken sandwich you had at lunch? Are you complicit in slow torture unto death, just by existing in the modern world?
Better to keep the door shut tight, and attack the messenger if anyone has anything to say about it. We’re just making music here. No torture, no killing, no profit from the destruction of lives. Just music! Trust me. Enjoy.
(I don’t think most people are like this. I actually think most people in the West at this point are against the “war” in Gaza, to at least some tepidly inactive degree. But certainly, also, a lot of people aren’t against it, q.v. this article.)
People talk regularly about those things and nobody gets cancelled over that. It’s only the Israel lobby that made talking about Palestine equal to anti-Semitism, no matter how mild (like in this case).
Well… yeah, that’s a fair point. The strength of Israel’s lobby has a ton to do with it (and lobbies like China can accomplish the same types of things). It’s 100% true.
They are terrified of repercussions from the US.
If America were forced to choose between Australia and Israel, it won’t be Israel.
Australia has more money.
Hahaha, no American politician ever calls themselves an Australinist. They are fucking nuts, like fanatically end of the world supporting Israel.
They don’t have to choose, they have the power to make Aussie politicians bend the knee, and everyone knows it. That’s what they’re afraid of.
Sure, but that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? That Australia is run by cowards.
No need to choose, Australia is easy to bully
I guess we know their stance on killing journalists, then.
Here’s what they cancelled him for:
for piano
duration: 5’00"
2024
for Jayson Gillham
dedicated to the journalists of Gaza
I acknowledge the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people of the Kulin Nation, Traditional Custodians of the lands where I live, work, and create – lands on which First Nations communities have been creating and sharing music, art and culture for thousands of generations. I pay my respects to their Elders past and present, and I recognise the vital ongoing contributions First Nations communities continue to make on our music and arts scenes. This always was, and always will be, Aboriginal land.
I also acknowledge all Indigenous Peoples worldwide, their continued fight for freedom from settler-colonialism and occupation, and recognise the interconnectedness of these, all struggles for justice and work towards a world free from oppression for all everyone.
He didn’t even dedicate it to journalists killed, just journalists. The headline is bullshit.
He never mentioned Israel.
EDIT: It just occurred to me that he wasn’t canceled for dedicating it to the journalists of Gaza. He was cancelled for calling Aboriginal people victims of settler-colonialism in Australia, which is objectively true…
The article quotes him saying more:
The five-minute piece is dedicated to the journalists of Gaza and was written for Gillham, according to D’Netto’s website. On Wednesday morning, Gillham’s team released the full transcript of what he said while introducing Witness.
“Over the last 10 months, Israel has killed more than one hundred Palestinian journalists,” Gillham told the crowd on Sunday.
“A number of these have been targeted assassinations of prominent journalists as they were travelling in marked press vehicles or wearing their press jackets. The killing of journalists is a war crime in international law, and it is done in an effort to prevent the documentation and broadcasting of war crimes to the world.
“In addition to the role of journalists who bear witness, the word Witness in Arabic is Shaheed, which also means Martyr.”
He was cancelled for calling Aboriginal people victims of settler-colonialism in Australia
Extremely unlikely. Australia’s colonial history and its impact on Indigenous Australians is a very common theme in modern Australian classical music and many concerts I have been to, including one just the other week, have conductors or soloists introduce the piece and specifically cite the context behind it. Unless the MSO is significantly different (which it doesn’t appear to be, based on some quick searches of Indigenous-themed concerts) this is not the reason. It was his comments about Israel targeting and killing journalists (what you quoted is not the actual introduction he made at the concert) which led to the cancellation.
Nah it wouldn’t be that, those sorts of land acknowledgements are very common in Melbourne, especially in the Arts, that would have been perceived as utterly uncontroversial by the MSO
Land acknowledgements devoid of teeth are common, where someone flaccidly admits that Indigenous people exist and have some unspecified connection to the land, not where someone actually states out loud the crimes that put their opera house on that land.
This was a good acknowledgement that actually implicates the current ruling class. That’s why they cancelled him.Edit: he actually went on to say more, but I stand by the fact that this wasnt just a standard acknowledgement.
Truth is treason in the empire of lies
This is absolutely untrue.
He probably did say this, but he was cancelled because of his comments about israel.
Wow, magnificent self-own by the Orchestra manager. Dedicated to journalists killed in Gaza - not Palestinians or Israelis or Hamas or the Israeli far right or IDF, but journalists in the broadest sense of the term. Who fucking cancels a show over that?
People who don’t want you to know that Israel is slaughtering everything in Gaza
Ain’t it great to see US political leadership tuck their dicks for Israel after IDF slaughter US nationals in west bank or Gaza?
MoSt PoWERFuL CuNTrY
slaughtering everything in Gaza
Bro, the us killed more innocent people in 1 night of bombing in ww2 then israel has killed in it’s entire 75 year existence.
The life expectancy in gaza is currently higher then in egypt, where Israel is not slaughtering anyone at all. At the current rate of death it will take Israel more then 1000 years to kill everyone in gaza.
So you’re saying that Israel’s genocide is fine because it hasn’t caused as much loss of life as a nuclear bomb?
It’s a fucking wonder to me how you believe that the fucking life expectancy data is going to be anywhere near up to date or verifiable, considering that Israel have killed like three years worth of the yearly death rate in 9 months.
There were multiple conventional non-nuclear bombings during world war 2 that caused more deaths in one night then in the entire 75 year conflict. For example, the bombing of Tokyo which used conventional weapons.
I’m not sure what your point is, here. If the bombing was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a bombing campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?
I would also consider those acts of bombing to be absolutely unjustified, evil, crimes against humanity and wholly deplorable. I’ve even spoken out against the bombings of civilians on this very account.
In order to consider it genocide I would say there has to be a risk of actually finishing genocide.
Do you consider palestine’s attack against civilians on oct 7th genocide?
If the attack against the music festival was worse, you’d be happy to consider it genocide? How many people does it take for a murder campaign to pass your “genocide” barrier? Is that in whole numbers, or as a percentage of population?
Uh, sorry, I didn’t realise we could just come up with our own “considerations” of words with meanings which are widely acknowledged under international law.
Here’s the basic criteria: State killing, maiming, attempted reduction of the birth rate, forcibly transferring children, or inflicting conditions calculated to bring about the destruction of, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, in whole or in part.
For the October 7 attacks to be acknowledged as a genocide, firstly, the State of Palestine would need to be acknowledged as a bona-fide state and Hamas recognised as the government of that country. Then we could discuss what the potential intent of the attacks were, but I don’t think that it would be a stretch to consider Hamas a genocidal organisation, or to consider the October 7 attacks genocidal in that case. These attacks, no matter how deplorable, do not justify genocide as a response.
Are you willing to acknowledge Israel as genocidal under the same framework?
deleted by creator
Because everyone knows who is killing journalists in Gaza
it was pretty specific if you read the article
It wasn’t actually that broad, he specifically mentioned that Israeli armed forces have targeted and killed journalists in Gaza.
Which is a actual true comment. Isn’t an opinion, it’s a statement of fact.
What sort of brain dead organization cancel somebody over the statement of a fact?
One that is concerned about a public backlash. I’m not sure if you’re from Australia, but the community is very divided here over this issue. It’s also an issue that tends to be divided by age groups, with older people being more likely to support Israel’s actions or see criticism of Israel as anti-semitism. Classical concert audiences tend to be quite old. With this context in mind, I suspect the MSO received a handful of complaints and incorrectly assumed this position would be less inflammatory. It’s possible that it actually is within their immediate audience, but the problem with making a big public statement like they’ve done is that it automatically puts you on a "side’ in this heated and highly polarised environment.
They should have just spoken to the soloist privately and explained their concerns to him prior to the next concert, instead of turning it into a big controversy. As triggered as some people may have been by the introduction, it wouldn’t have been enough to turn this into a real controversy the way it has become since they cancelled the concert. Like this news story is not actually anywhere near important enough to make World News communities and get outraged replies from foreigners who had never even heard of the MSO before this. It’s the story’s connection to the situation in Gaza that is the big issue here, and deliberately involving themselves in that was a massive PR mistake.
but the community is very divided here over this issue
Noo it’s not mate, this isn’t America. The government supports Israel, but the people clearly favour Palestine.
He accused Israel of committing war crimes.
The MSO has already backed down and is rescheduling the concert.
Pussies twice over.
Extremists always think that everyone agrees with them. They usually are unprepared for the scenario in which this is not the case.
The article goes into depth with the artists remarks. Its nowhere close to something like: “This next piece is dedicated to the journalists killed in Gaza” which is what I would have assumed.
He provided context as to why that piece would be performed. I don’t think he went over the top at all.
Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? Do you support the use of this platform because you agree with the position or because you believe he should be able to voice whatever position he wants? Would you be in support if his opinions were on White nationalism?
edit: Calm down people, I don’t support Israel nor white nationalism. I’m probing where @T00l_shed@lemmy.world 's limits are for what they a believe is acceptable. I’m not advocating for any political position with my questions.
No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren’t comparable.
No, he is providing factual context about a situation, denouncing violence. Your examples aren’t comparable.
So your position is that as long as context about the situation is factual, you would not have a problem with any commentary he’d give on any subject?
Sure, you could say that that is my position if you ignore everything else I said.
This doesn’t sound like we’re communicating then. Thank you for taking the time to converse up to now. Have a great day!
You too.
It seems I may have misread your statement. I apologize.
Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.
Denouncing violence is very different than supporting or inciting violence, fwiw.
I completely agree. You can see that in the first question I asked in that post: "Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza? "
The followup questions were probing if that poster was simply against violence or simply a pure free speech advocate.
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible. Your questions detract from that & minimize the problems to a matter of personal opinion
Isn’t that what I said in the very first line of my post you’re replying to? I’ll quote myself:
“Can I ask would you hold the same position that his statements should have been allowed if it was in strong support of the violence against the people in Gaza?”
The main point here is being against the violence, of which israel is largely responsible.
The violence began before israel even existed. Israel is not responsible for violence against jews.
Violence has existed for all of human history. Doesn’t excuse Israel’s bombing of journalists.
Hamas issues press passes to its military spotters. The transmission of military intel makes people valid targets under the laws of war. That is a valid excuse for bombing journalists.
“I feel his comments were appropriate”
“Would you feel the same if they were different comments?”
You’re getting closer to where I was going:
“I feel his comments were appropriate”
“How different would his comments have to be to be not appropriate?”
This isn’t a binary state, its a scale. I was asking questions of scale.
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
Even the ones who were keeping hostages in their homes?
Oh, the IOF said it? Must be true 😂. The only thing they say concretely and sourced in the article is that he worked at a “pro Hamas” media outlet (can’t speak to this claim, but remember all the other things the IOF has claimed are Hamas), and that he wrote a piece for Al Jazeera.
Disregarding all that. Assuming that this guy was a journalist who was also a gun carrying member of Hamas and held actual hostages in his house, does that say anything about the record number of journalists that have been assasinated by the IOF?
I think it pretty clearly doesn’t.
