Possibly—silencing the silencer of the silencers… but at that point it already starts to feel a bit pointless.
And at a certain stage the word itself starts to lose meaning when you repeat it so many times, and it becomes very uncomfortable.

The question was when it becomes “too much.” In my reply I was trying to hint to you, sarcastically, at exactly that. If everyone who expresses an opinion is considered to be silencing, then you silenced me too. In short, expressing an opinion is not silencing.

But demonization is silencing, isn’t it?
Including demonization of the silencers.
“The hostages cult,” “the Church of the Left.”

Absolutely not. Such labels are not silencing, for three reasons: 1. If the labels are correct, then they are descriptive. Here they are plainly correct. It really is a religion and a church. 2. These labels are mild and are not silencing but description. In my view this is a religion and a church. 3. Silencing means not allowing positions to be expressed. I have never denied anyone like that the ability to speak, which cannot be said of the believers in that religion, for whom anyone who disagrees with them is a murderer, anti-moral, corrupt, and barbaric. The comparison has no basis whatsoever.

But what if, in their opinion, anyone who disagrees with them really is anti-moral and corrupt?
From their point of view that’s true, so it’s description, not silencing.

And they also don’t prevent people who disagree with them from speaking, simply because they don’t have the power to do that—apart from trying to strip them of legitimacy through descriptions, like you do, no?

Indeed. If in their opinion that is the situation, then using such labels is entirely justified. But there is still room to examine the logic underlying what they think. And since what they think is absurd (regarding the murder of the hostages), I do not accept this comparison. Anyone can hold any opinion, and by your approach it will always be justified from his own point of view. If someone says that Bibi operates a poison machine—which is true to a large extent—and doesn’t notice (or doesn’t want to notice) that he himself is operating a poison machine a thousand times more violent and silencing, then I have nothing to say to him. This symmetry that is being artificially created can justify anything.

They absolutely do restrict freedom of speech. For example, in the media one position clearly and unequivocally dominates. The same is true in academia, in artistic-cultural circles, and in various workplaces (high-tech and law offices). The fact is that people in these places are in the closet and do not dare express a different position. Could anyone imagine shutting down a university or the Histadrut because of a government move to the left? (For example, over making a hostage deal.) It would be unthinkable, and rightly so. But in favor of a hostage deal it seems obvious to them. The same applies to the judicial reform (who would imagine shutting down a university over an overly activist court policy, or because the government is not fighting the court?).
When you express an opinion and people yell at you or get offended instead of discussing it with you, that is silencing. Likewise, when every person who expresses a position against LGBT issues or against a hostage deal is called a homophobe or a murderer, that is not expressing an opinion but silencing.
By the way, the attitude toward religious people is that they are a church by definition, and they do not necessarily see that as an insult. But on the left there is a sense that they are free and unbiased and have no dogmas, and that is why I use the term church. I have written more than once that there are churches on all sides. They see this as silencing because, as everyone knows, the right to silence is reserved only for them.
This discussion seems completely unnecessary to me. If you don’t see it, then in my view that’s a kind of blindness. But either way, I probably won’t manage to explain to you the difference between the sides. To me it is completely obvious. It’s very hard to explain why these kinds of artificial symmetrizations are groundless.

“The media and academia” sounds over-generalized to me. Is Channel 14 left-wing? Israel Hayom? Makor Rishon? Those are also popular media outlets.
At Bar-Ilan University and Ariel University, can leftists speak freely?
In law offices in Jerusalem, who do you think climbs the hierarchy in the office—the leftists or the right-wingers? Who has to keep their mouth shut more there in order to keep their job?
The hostages’ families get a lot of crap from the public. If there really were silencing, they wouldn’t get so many curses and threats.

And by the way, I didn’t say you don’t have the right to silence the silencers. Maybe that’s even the moral thing to do, I don’t know. I just said that it seems to me there’s a paradox here.

And pointing out a paradox is not the same thing as trying to create symmetry, if I understand the two concepts correctly.
A paradox doesn’t come to justify anything.

Li,
A technical expression of opinion is not silencing.
Inciting hate speech, threats, violence, sanctions, punishment, legislation against—these are all silencing.
Just a subjective experience of mine: I work in film, and creators from the wrong side almost never get past the first hurdle of prize committees or funding committees. There are boycotts and sanctions from the left against works from the right—an everyday matter. And it’s important to note that these do not have to be works dealing with the conflict; it is enough that they come from conquering creators. Those are just a few examples from a small field. In the U.S. it is well known that students are afraid for their grades; I don’t know what the situation is in Israel on that issue. I have more examples ready, and of course you can find such practices everywhere, but what is the broader picture?
Generally speaking, the resistance practices of the left differ from those of the right in this respect, and much could be said about it.
Your example of law offices is excellent. My wife is a CPA in Jerusalem, and there are strong leftists in her office. As far as I know, they are not discriminated against in any way. There are many stories of right-wing media and academic people who suffered many sanctions; I don’t know of stories in the opposite direction. Of course, in a right-wing city like Jerusalem you can find improper behavior in one office or another, but again, what is the broader picture? And again, speaking very generally: the right argues with the left, and the left silences the right. The argument, as Michi said, lies in how the right-winger sees the left-winger—an errant brother, and at times a dangerous one. And how the left-winger sees the right-winger—a racist, a homophobe, a supporter of dictatorship and of genocide, and above all, someone who wants the hostages dead.

By the way, legislation against freedom of speech today is coming from the right (because it is in power). I certainly do not claim that the right, with all its ministers and servants, are outstanding liberals.

Indeed, it is a generalization. I wrote briefly here, but the meaning seems completely clear to me. Channels 1-2-3. Channel 14 arose in response to these acts of silencing (I’ll just remind you of the initiative in the Knesset to shut down Israel Hayom, and the ongoing persecution of Channel 7 and its closure).
As for academia, I have a few surprises for you. I work at Bar-Ilan, and the situation there is not very different from Tel Aviv. The silencing is somewhat less, and it depends on the department. But it is still done in the same direction. And as far as I know, the reverse silencing does not exist at Ariel at all. As for law offices and high-tech companies, these things are common knowledge. The same goes for the Histadrut. And in my opinion, there is no reverse silencing in Jerusalem law offices either (where did you get that from?).
The hostages’ families get very little from the public because people take their situation into account. They should have absorbed much more were it not for their difficult situation. Their incitement and silencing are outrageous.
As I wrote, there is no point to this discussion. There is a situation that is completely clear to me, though indeed I did not run statistics. When I hear the discourse at the university, I do not need statistics (and that’s at Bar-Ilan, no less).
By the way, there is silencing from the right too, and of course there is inappropriate legislation. As I said, there are churches on all sides, and I explained why I focus on the one on the left.

As for Jerusalem—that’s what I heard from a friend who studied law at the Hebrew University and did her internship in Jerusalem. This is not from my own personal experience.

As for the discussion—it has become a bit emotional, at least on my side; I don’t know what’s going on on yours.
The original question was theoretical to begin with—what counts as silencing (for example, demonization?), and is there a paradox in silencing the silencers because they silence.

And if I understood correctly, it is appropriate to “demonize” liberals, because they see themselves as people who do not think in terms of demons and ideas (sorry, I just read column 239…), and they should be made to recognize their mistake.