Speaker 1: I
Speaker 1: think it's time for this toxic binary zero sum madness stuff.
Speaker 1: We're not an imperial power where Revolutionary Power Way are
Speaker 1: no longer in a world where you can plot out moves,
Speaker 1: statesman to statesman, like a chessboard. You don't know anything
Speaker 1: about my background where it came from. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: to you because fundamentally, on the mean white man, we
Speaker 1: can't do this to the next generation because America will
Speaker 1: cease to exist.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the monk debate podcast. I'm your moderator, Roger Griffis.
Speaker 1: Our mission every episode is to provide you with civil
Speaker 1: and substandard debate on the big issues of the day,
Speaker 1: free of spin, focused on facts and animated by smart conversation.
Speaker 1: By the end of each debate, our hope is that
Speaker 1: you'll be armed with enough information to make up your
Speaker 1: own mind about any given issue on this episode. Way
Speaker 1: debate the motion, be it resolved. Anti Zionism is anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: When people sneakily make claims that they are for the
Speaker 1: Jews but against Israel. That's something that we can't just
Speaker 1: pretend is theoretically sound because we know the consequences that
Speaker 1: too often follow from it.
Speaker 2: Anti Semitism is something very frightening and very disturbing and
Speaker 2: is coming from both the left and the right. But
Speaker 2: it is not fair to make Palestinians pay the price
Speaker 2: for that.
Speaker 1: It's a debate brewing on college campuses in our domestic politics,
Speaker 1: and it's shaping opinion about the state of Israel on
Speaker 1: the world stage. At the heart of the debate is
Speaker 1: the issue of where and when. In fact, if ever
Speaker 1: it's okay to question the legitimacy of the Jewish state
Speaker 1: in present day Israel. We're gonna walk this fine line
Speaker 1: with two big thinkers that holds sharply different points of view,
Speaker 1: arguing for the motion, be it resolved. Anti Zionism is
Speaker 1: anti Semitism is New York Times columnist Bret Stephens. His
Speaker 1: opponent is Peter Beinhart, contributing editor at the Atlantic and
Speaker 1: author of The Crisis of Zionism. Bret Stephens, Peter Beinhart.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Monk debate podcast. Thank you. Good to
Speaker 1: be here, Brett. Since you're speaking in favor of today's resolution,
Speaker 1: be it resolved. Anti Zionism is anti Semitism. Let's hear
Speaker 1: your opening statement first start for us.
Speaker 1: I think there's a common misconception
Speaker 1: that anti Zionism
Speaker 1: amounts to nothing more than a very strong criticism of Israel,
Speaker 1: and I'd like to begin by dispelling that notion.
Speaker 1: People who don't like the Netanyahu government that includes me,
Speaker 1: um, are not anti Zionists. That's part of the normal
Speaker 1: democratic debate.
Speaker 1: People who oppose Israel's settlement policies or its policies
Speaker 1: visa VI Gaza or anywhere else aren't necessarily anti Zionists.
Speaker 1: There are many patriotic Israelis who feel just the same way.
Speaker 1: Anti Zionism is unique because it's view is that the
Speaker 1: Zionist enterprise, that is to say, the state of Israel
Speaker 1: is misconceived.
Speaker 1: It's wrong.
Speaker 1: And at the end of the day, it isn't simply
Speaker 1: Israeli policy that has to change.
Speaker 1: But it is Israel itself
Speaker 1: that has to go
Speaker 1: now. This is unique when you think about other countries
Speaker 1: around the world. Many of us are critics of China's
Speaker 1: occupation of Tibet, Russia's occupation of parts of Ukraine. Some
Speaker 1: people are aware that Turkey is occupying northern Cyprus in
Speaker 1: violation of international law and putting down settlements there, too.
Speaker 1: But none of those critiques extend to calls that are
Speaker 1: now increasingly pervasive around the world, not only for Russia,
Speaker 1: China or Turkey toe change their policies, but for the
Speaker 1: states themselves to disappear, to be eliminated. So even if
Speaker 1: you accept the premise for one second. Roger that. Anti
Speaker 1: Zionism is not anti Semitism. You have to come to
Speaker 1: grips with the
Speaker 1: elimination ist ideology that is at the heart of anti Zionism.
Speaker 1: But anti Zionism is anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's anti Semitism for a reason. I
Speaker 1: just suggested it is. It singles out the Jewish state
Speaker 1: for opprobrium and with a prescription that anti Zionists apply
Speaker 1: to no other state. Second point, that's very important is
Speaker 1: that anti Zionism
Speaker 1: tens very frequently to traffic in images,
Speaker 1: in tropes
Speaker 1: and in libels that have a long history in an
Speaker 1: anti Semitic tradition stretching back for thousands of years. So,
Speaker 1: for example, when you hear that Israel is committing genocide
Speaker 1: in Gaza and it course manifestly is not, you are
Speaker 1: abusing that word that is trafficking in a classic anti
Speaker 1: Semitic trope, suggesting that the Jewish people have a particular
Speaker 1: kind of bloodlust. Or if you say that Israel or
Speaker 1: Israeli leaders have hypnotized the world to get them to
Speaker 1: do their bidding, that again goes back to an old
Speaker 1: anti Semitic trump. And finally, anti Semitism is anti Zionism because,
Speaker 1: like all forms of Jew hatred in history, it has
Speaker 1: adapted itself almost like a virus to the cultural and
Speaker 1: political fashions of our day. Today, it is very difficult
Speaker 1: for people to be anti Semites to hate Jews for
Speaker 1: racial reasons, for the obvious reason that that kind of ideology,
Speaker 1: fortunately, went out of fashion with the destruction of the
Speaker 1: Third Reich. It's unfashionable to hate Jews simply on a
Speaker 1: religious basis. But it has become fashionable to hate Jews,
Speaker 1: using the excuse of their statehood, of their nationality and
Speaker 1: of their willingness to defend their borders as the latest
Speaker 1: pretext to single out Jewish people for opprobrium and for
Speaker 1: hatred that is applied to almost no other people. If
Speaker 1: no other people in the world. That is why, in
Speaker 1: a nutshell,
Speaker 1: anti Zionism is indistinguishable from anti Semitism. It is the
Speaker 1: anti Semitism of our day. Bret Stephens. Thank you for
Speaker 1: that opening statement. Pierre Beinhart. I'm gonna turn the microphone
Speaker 1: over to you. Let's hear your opening remarks.
Speaker 2: Sure, I think. First it is useful to try to
Speaker 2: define what Zionism, or at least political Zionism is. It's
Speaker 2: the idea that there should be a state. That privilege
Speaker 2: is Jews that has a special responsibility to protect and
Speaker 2: represent Jews. You see that in the state of Israel,
Speaker 2: symbols which are religious and with immigration policy, which makes
Speaker 2: it allows the diaspora Jews like myself to come to
Speaker 2: Israel and become a citizen on stay one and makes
Speaker 2: it virtually impossible for a Palestinian to immigrate to Israel
Speaker 2: and become a citizen. Now I am a Zionist because
Speaker 2: as a Jew, I believe in the importance of estate
Speaker 2: that has a special responsibility to Jews. But I also
Speaker 2: think that there are many, many examples of people who
Speaker 2: do not support that Jewish privilege in the state of
Speaker 2: Israel who are not anti Semite. So, for instance, there
Speaker 2: is a component of the Jewish world that opposes Zionism.
Speaker 2: Doesn't get necessarily that much attention. But the PSAT Marcus it, um,
Speaker 2: for instance, who are the largest Pacific group in the
Speaker 2: world they have meetings in in football. Stadiums that are
Speaker 2: larger than the A pack national convention are anti Zionist
Speaker 2: because of their traditional reading of Jewish texts. Jewish Voice
Speaker 2: for Peace on the Left as a Jewish organization that
Speaker 2: believes that its liberal democratic values our intention with the
Speaker 2: idea of a state that privileges Jews even inside Israel proper,
Speaker 2: privileges them over Palestinians. It's to that Most Jews around
Speaker 2: the world are Zionists. But that wasn't always the case.
Speaker 2: And there still is a robust debate about Zionism. Probably
Speaker 2: if you look at younger American Jews today, you would
Speaker 2: find that there's an even larger number of people who
Speaker 2: have significant questions about the idea of Zionism, either because
Speaker 2: traditional re Jewish religious texts say that it's incompatible with
Speaker 2: Jewish religious law or because it violates their liberal democratic values.
Speaker 2: In either case is those people is just simply not
Speaker 2: anti Semites.
Speaker 2: Secondly, you have almost all Palestinians are anti Zionists again
Speaker 2: because they don't support the idea off a state that
Speaker 2: privileges Jews over Palestinians now some of their anti Zionism
Speaker 2: is absolutely Semitic if you look at the Islamic kind
Speaker 2: of domination ist ideology of Hamas. But there are many
Speaker 2: other Palestinians who say very openly and simply that they
Speaker 2: want Israel to not be a Jewish state, but to
Speaker 2: be a state for all its citizens in which everyone
Speaker 2: lives under the same law. There were a number of
Speaker 2: Palestinian members of the Knesset who introduced ah, what's called
Speaker 2: a basic law in Israel last year, saying simply this.
Speaker 2: They should not be a state built on principles of
Speaker 2: privilege for any group. It should be a liberal democracy
Speaker 2: with equal law provided to everybody.
Speaker 2: Now it's true that there are many ethnically based states
Speaker 2: around the world. But we do not, as a general principle,
Speaker 2: have the idea that every nation that wants its own
Speaker 2: state should have won the Kurds. Don't the Catalans Don't
Speaker 2: the Basques don't the Quebecers don't I don't think we
Speaker 2: would say that people who oppose a Kurdish state are
Speaker 2: anti Semitic, and in fact, there are states that were
Speaker 2: built on ethnic or racial privilege that have been dismantled, right?
Speaker 2: So I do not consider Israel on apartheid state. I
Speaker 2: think the way that a partisan Africa privileged whites over
Speaker 2: blacks was much more extreme than the way that Israel
Speaker 2: privileges Jews over non Jews. But when that was dismantled
Speaker 2: and the project of national self determination for offer Connors
Speaker 2: was ended and Israel became a state for all its citizens,
Speaker 2: that wasn't anti Afrikaner bigotry. And if you say that
Speaker 2: all Palestinians who are anti Zionists are anti Semites, even
Speaker 2: those who say that all they want is one state
Speaker 2: in which Jews and Palestinians live under unequal law. Then,
Speaker 2: in fact, you are essentially delegitimizing all Palestinian politics. You're
Speaker 2: equating Palestinian politics with bigotry, and I think that's very
Speaker 2: destructive for our appreciation of Palestinian human dignity and, I
Speaker 2: think undermines the quest for peace.
Speaker 1: Thank you both for those opening statements. Let me quickly
Speaker 1: sum up here. Bret Stephens. The gist of your argument
Speaker 1: is that while it's become widely unacceptable to be anti
Speaker 1: Semitic for racial or religious reasons, it has become acceptable
Speaker 1: to criticize Jews for pursuing statehood or for defending their borders.
Speaker 1: Which do you are essential to the very existence of
Speaker 1: Israel
Speaker 1: and Peter Beinhart. You're saying, quite simply, that one can
Speaker 1: disagree with the politics of the state of Israel. You
Speaker 1: can even be anti Zionist and still not be anti Semitic.
Speaker 1: Hence your against the motion, be it resolved. Anti Zionism
Speaker 1: is anti Semitism. Now let's move on to our rebuttals breath. Steven,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna pass the microphone back to you to respond
Speaker 1: to a few. The key things that Peter said that
Speaker 1: are at the top of your mind. Well, I know
Speaker 1: this debate is being heard. And obviously, in Canada and
Speaker 1: in the United States and in both countries,
Speaker 1: the idea of a state privileging a particular nation that is,
Speaker 1: to say, a particular culture. Ethnicity, religion, language and so
Speaker 1: on might seem a little strange to our traditions simply
Speaker 1: because the United States was not founded as a nation state.
Speaker 1: But you or many listeners might be surprised to learn
Speaker 1: that around the world, all kinds of states, including states
Speaker 1: that we consider upstanding members of the liberal Democratic order
Speaker 1: do in fact offer certain kinds of privileges to a
Speaker 1: given nation that are not offered to others. Let me
Speaker 1: give you a neg. Zampa Ll Denmark, unlike the United States,
Speaker 1: has an official language. Danish. You'll be surprised to learn
Speaker 1: Germany for many years. I don't know if it's the
Speaker 1: current policy, but it certainly was the policy. For decades Postwar,
Speaker 1: Germany offered expedited citizenship to German nationals who had been
Speaker 1: living in what became the Soviet Union for not decades.
Speaker 1: But in fact, for centuries they offered citizenship based on
Speaker 1: a kn ancestral claim of nationality and ethnicity. So the
Speaker 1: idea that Zionism, that Jewish Sinus like the Danes, like
Speaker 1: the Germans like many other nation states offer certain kind
Speaker 1: of privileges to the dominant ethnic or religious group is
Speaker 1: not a very strange idea. It's certainly not an outrageous idea.
Speaker 1: I don't hear many people calling for the elimination of Germany,
Speaker 1: much less the elimination of Denmark. Now, a second point
Speaker 1: that Peter raises. You can always find the odd exception,
Speaker 1: like he mentioned the Satmar Hasidim, who are not Zionists.
Speaker 1: I'm perfectly happy to concede that there are these rare
Speaker 1: exceptions as there are when it comes to any prejudice.
Speaker 1: But that does not mean that we should overlook the
Speaker 1: fact that if you were to draw a Venn diagram
Speaker 1: and map anti Zionism over anti Semitism, the overlap would
Speaker 1: be absolutely astonishing. So Peter is trying to point to
Speaker 1: a handful of exceptions and say this disproves the rule.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that that's it. All. The case, the
Speaker 1: third point and maybe into some listeners of the most
Speaker 1: powerful point is to say well, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of Palestinians who don't want a state of Israel who
Speaker 1: want the destruction of the state of Israel, or at
Speaker 1: least one it substituted with with with a single state
Speaker 1: now for the last 25 for however many years,
Speaker 1: well intended people and this includes myself have been working
Speaker 1: and have been hoping for a two state solution precisely
Speaker 1: because Zionism is so central to Jewish identity. So when
Speaker 1: there are Palestinians who say we want the destruction of
Speaker 1: the state of Israel rather than the creation of an
Speaker 1: independent Palestinian state, they are in fact participating in that
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, and it should be no surprise, and I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to say this, but anti Semitism not just of
Speaker 1: the postmodern 21st century anti Zionist variety but of the
Speaker 1: old fashioned 19 century kind is alive and well on
Speaker 1: Palestinian television, in Palestinian mosques and in Palestinian society. That's
Speaker 1: a reality that a lot of supporters of Palestinian statehood
Speaker 1: want to look away from. But if anyone is being
Speaker 1: honest about Palestinian politics, they have to acknowledge that there
Speaker 1: is far too much rank old fashioned anti Semitism inhabiting
Speaker 1: of Palestinian politics, Palestinian discourse.
Speaker 1: Thanks, Bret Stephens, Peter Beinhart. Let's get your response to
Speaker 1: what you've heard from breakfast. Now I want to
Speaker 2: start with the idea of the Venn diagram that there's
Speaker 2: an almost exact over level not entirely almost exact between
Speaker 2: the group of people who are Zionist and the group
Speaker 2: of people who are anti Semites. I just think that's
Speaker 2: not empirically the case. First of all, some of the
Speaker 2: most valiantly in obviously anti Semitic leaders in the world today.
Speaker 2: I think of someone like Viktor Orban in Hungary, for instance,
Speaker 2: of the far right leaders in much of Europe and
Speaker 2: to some degree, even Donald Trump, who has a much
Speaker 2: longer history of peddling anti Semitic stereotypes than Ilhan Omar,
Speaker 2: are very Zionist IQ. In fact, it's not intellectually inconsistent.
Speaker 2: If you like the Polish leaders of the 19 thirties
Speaker 2: who were anti Semitic. If you don't want Jews in
Speaker 2: your country, you might be quite happy about the idea
Speaker 2: that they would have a country of their own. And
Speaker 2: what we know about polling in the United States suggest
Speaker 2: that the Venn diagram actually may not really overlap nearly
Speaker 2: as much as Brett says, because when the Anti Defamation
Speaker 2: League did a study and they asked people to measure
Speaker 2: their anti Semitism, they ask questions like to Jews have
Speaker 2: too much power. Do they only look out for themselves?
Speaker 2: They found that the most anti Semitic people in the
Speaker 2: United States were older and without college degrees. And yet,
Speaker 2: when people study Israel sentiment, hostility to Israel differences, the
Speaker 2: Pew Research Center they find that the people who have
Speaker 2: the most hostility to Israel tend to be young and
Speaker 2: highly educated. So actually, the Venn diagram doesn't necessarily overlap
Speaker 2: nearly as much. I think his bread is suggesting it
Speaker 2: is certainly true. Bread is absolutely right. There are lots
Speaker 2: of countries in the world that have crosses or crescents
Speaker 2: on their flags and that have some form of preferential
Speaker 2: immigration policy. Israel is at an extreme in the sense
Speaker 2: that even though Britain has across on its flag, Britain
Speaker 2: has had a Jewish prime minister. Where is very difficult
Speaker 2: to imagine the state of Israel having, let's say, a
Speaker 2: Palestinian prime minister? But I think the critical point for
Speaker 2: our debate is that if you were a Brit who
Speaker 2: wanted to take that cross off the flag or a
Speaker 2: German to use Brett's example, who didn't want Germany to
Speaker 2: have on immigration policy that privileged Germans over another group,
Speaker 2: you might be right. You might be wrong. You wouldn't
Speaker 2: be in a bigot for taking those used. This would
Speaker 2: be on argument about ethnic versus civic nationalism, which is
Speaker 2: an argument that takes place in all different parts of
Speaker 2: the world. There is Palestinian anti Semitism. Bread is entirely
Speaker 2: right about that. But when he used the word destruction
Speaker 2: of the state of Israel, I think what he's conflating
Speaker 2: is the notion that there are that some have, like
Speaker 2: Islamic Jihad, for instance, of a violent war. T destroy
Speaker 2: Israel and kill Jews, and another group of Palestinians who
Speaker 2: have supporters around the world who want to replace Zionism,
Speaker 2: which is an ethnic nationalism with a civic nationalism that
Speaker 2: they believe would treat all people equally. There are very
Speaker 2: good critiques of this. I am a supporter of the
Speaker 2: two state solution, but I just don't think it makes.
Speaker 2: I think it defies logic to say that someone who
Speaker 2: wants people to live equally in one state is there
Speaker 1: for a bigot.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the monk debate podcast, Be it resolved.
Speaker 1: Anti Zionism is anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: If you're enjoying this debate, check out our website monk
Speaker 1: debates dot com for dozens of debates on the big
Speaker 1: issues of the day, Listen to Tony Blair and Christopher
Speaker 1: Hitchens debate whether religion is a force for good in
Speaker 1: the world. Watch freed Zakaria, Neil Ferguson Go head to
Speaker 1: head on the future of geopolitics, read Stephen Fry and
Speaker 1: Jordan Peterson's debate on political correctness. All these debates Frito, Listen,
Speaker 1: watch and read at monk debates dot com.
Speaker 1: So, Brett, what's the rebuttal? That this discussion around anti
Speaker 1: Zionism and labeling people is anti Zionists is cutting off
Speaker 1: the kind of legitimate, necessary, sometimes difficult conversations that necessitate
Speaker 1: that are the basis of sustaining some hope for a
Speaker 1: two state solution? You know, just recently in the United States,
Speaker 1: we've had a NAR Gye mint between left and right
Speaker 1: over some horrendous comments that the president made with respect
Speaker 1: to four minority Congress women
Speaker 1: in which he said that they should quote, go back
Speaker 1: to the countries that are supposedly their countries of origin.
Speaker 1: And obviously, and importantly, Omar has a history of launching
Speaker 1: vicious anti Semitic
Speaker 1: screens.
Speaker 1: I mean, to me, this is a nakedly bigoted and
Speaker 1: frankly racist comment, and I don't need
Speaker 1: I don't need anyone to tell me otherwise, but I
Speaker 1: found it interesting to listen to some
Speaker 1: conservative commentators
Speaker 1: either duck the question of the statements, bigotry and racism altogether,
Speaker 1: or actually engage in this kind of fine grained, legalistic
Speaker 1: parsing as to whether it was racist or merely xenophobic.
Speaker 1: We live in an age when we not only see
Speaker 1: and hear, but if you don't mind my saying when
Speaker 1: we smell, when we get that whiff of racist bigotry,
Speaker 1: we call it out. And people on the left people
Speaker 1: who typically are on Peter Side of the debate have
Speaker 1: been very vocal in doing so. And I, of course,
Speaker 1: have have joined them in that as a as a
Speaker 1: so called never trump conservative. But I find amazing is
Speaker 1: that when we come to a different kind of bigotry,
Speaker 1: which is the bigotry against Jews that all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: my friends who are so attuned to micro aggressions into
Speaker 1: racist dog whistles start to sound a little bit like
Speaker 1: the Mitch McConnells of the world and trying to carefully
Speaker 1: parse exactly what the language was that was used and
Speaker 1: to make excuses for people who are engaging in just
Speaker 1: the kinds of stereotypes and tropes and language that those
Speaker 1: of us who understand anti Semitism are unfortunately all too
Speaker 1: familiar with. And I would wish that someone like Peter,
Speaker 1: who is so honorably thoughtful when it comes to calling
Speaker 1: out racism when he sees it and not allowing Racists
Speaker 1: toe hide behind carefully parsed language, would be equally vocal
Speaker 1: when it comes to not insisting on these exquisitely fine
Speaker 1: grain distinctions between anti Zionism and anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: I want to make a final point, which is this.
Speaker 1: We are living in an era
Speaker 1: of resurgent anti Semitism, and this is not. This is
Speaker 1: not a question of anti Semitism or anti Zionism. When
Speaker 1: a program nearly happens in a synagogue in Paris, when
Speaker 1: protesters in Germany call for Jews to go, Palestinian protesters
Speaker 1: or Arab protesters in Germany call for choose to go
Speaker 1: to the to the gas. When schools throughout Europe, Jewish
Speaker 1: schools are behind armed guards and when a synagogue in
Speaker 1: Pittsburgh and another synagogue in San Diego is victimized by
Speaker 1: anti Semitic, violent, murderous hatred. We're living in a certain Europe,
Speaker 1: and that's an era in which we've learned that not
Speaker 1: just in Europe but also here in North America. Jews
Speaker 1: aren't entirely safe,
Speaker 1: the one place where Jews actually can defend themselves and
Speaker 1: have the sovereign and legal means to do so
Speaker 1: is in the state of Israel, and it behooves anyone
Speaker 1: with a sense of the long and violent history of
Speaker 1: anti Semitism
Speaker 1: toe understand that. That's why those of us who have
Speaker 1: that sense are so careful to not only denounce anti
Speaker 1: Semitism when we see it, but to understand that the
Speaker 1: long term security of the Jewish people
Speaker 1: requires the safety and health of the state of Israel
Speaker 1: and when people sneakily make claims that they are for
Speaker 1: the Jews but against Israel, that's something that we can't
Speaker 1: just pretend is theoretically sound because we know the consequences
Speaker 1: that too often follow from it. Thank you, Brad Peter.
Speaker 1: That's the point that I've thought about also in the
Speaker 1: context of this debate, I mean, why isn't it fair
Speaker 1: to take a harder line on anti Zionism to draw clear,
Speaker 1: sharper distinctions? Because we are seeing this wave of rising
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, and how can the to not be in
Speaker 1: some way intertwined and linked and feeding off one another?
Speaker 2: I mean, the two can be intertwined and interlinked if
Speaker 2: you've got a pro Palestinian march that is saying juice
Speaker 2: to go to the gas, then That's clearly both anti
Speaker 2: Zionist and anti Semitic. I'm not saying that people who
Speaker 2: anti Zionist like Louis Farrakhan, for instance, or Hamas cannot
Speaker 2: also be anti Semitic. I'm simply saying that Zionists could
Speaker 2: be anti Semites to look at Viktor Orban and that
Speaker 2: anti Zionists cannot be anti Semites. You know, Brett might
Speaker 2: not like the folks in Jewish for his for peace,
Speaker 2: but they have 15,000 members, which is almost as big
Speaker 2: as some of the right wing Jewish organizations, and they
Speaker 2: genuinely believe and again they come out of that. There's
Speaker 2: a long tradition going back to the book and a
Speaker 2: tradition of anti Zionist Jews not because they don't care
Speaker 2: about Jewish welfare, but because they don't believe that ethnic
Speaker 2: nationalism is the best way to provide for Jewish security.
Speaker 2: And the problem is that anti Semitism is something very
Speaker 2: frightening and very disturbing and is coming from both the
Speaker 2: left and the right. But it is not fair to
Speaker 2: make Palestinians pay. The price for that is if to
Speaker 2: suggest that because Jews are frightened because of our history
Speaker 2: and frightened now that therefore we have no concern about
Speaker 2: the rights of Palestinians that they write. Palestinians also have
Speaker 2: basic rights and to deny Palestinians their basic rights is
Speaker 2: also ah form of bigotry. I always find it odd
Speaker 2: that so many of the same people who say that
Speaker 2: it is bigoted to depose a Jewish state seem not
Speaker 2: to find it bigoted at all to oppose a Palestinian state, right?
Speaker 2: Many members of Congress oppose a Palestinian state. Are they bigots, too?
Speaker 1: ESO? Earlier this year, at a town hall meeting in
Speaker 1: ST Catharines, Ontario, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau came out
Speaker 1: against the BDS movement, the Boycott, divestment and sanctions movement,
Speaker 1: which is the campaign promoting various boycotts against the state
Speaker 1: of Israel. Here's a clip when you have movements like
Speaker 1: BDs that singles out Israel
Speaker 1: that seeks to delegitimize and in some cases, demonize. When
Speaker 1: you have students on campus
Speaker 1: dealing with things like Israel apartheid weeks, that makes them
Speaker 1: fearful of actually attending campus events because of their religion
Speaker 1: in Canada. We have to recognize that there are things
Speaker 1: that aren't acceptable, not because of foreign policy concerns,
Speaker 1: but because of Canadian values. It's not right to discriminate
Speaker 1: or to make someone feel unsafe on campus because of
Speaker 1: their religion. And unfortunately, the BDS movement is often linked
Speaker 1: to those kinds of friends. Peter Beinhart first to you.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with people like Justin Trudeau? Is the
Speaker 1: BDs movement anti Semitic?
Speaker 2: No, I don't think the BDS movement is inherently anti Semitic.
Speaker 2: They're certainly anti Semites in the BDs movement. As I said,
Speaker 2: there are anti Semites on the pro Israel right, both
Speaker 2: in the U. S and Europe as well. The BDS movement,
Speaker 2: which I oppose, wants to boycott all of Israel until
Speaker 2: Israel leaves the occupied territories until there is the right
Speaker 2: of refugee return. And until there is a quality for
Speaker 2: Palestinian citizens, I have critiques of all of those three points.
Speaker 2: But there's nothing inherently anti Semitic in that view, unless
Speaker 2: you believe that it is bigoted to oppose Jewish state
Speaker 2: in which I don't believe others would say it's bigoted
Speaker 2: because they're singling out Israel. The problem with that argument
Speaker 2: is that the BDS movement emerges from Palestinian civil society.
Speaker 2: It was a Palestinian call for a boycott modeled on
Speaker 2: the call by Black by the A, M, C and
Speaker 2: others in black South Africa. People around the world are
Speaker 2: responding to that call Most of those people, in my experience,
Speaker 2: who supported the BDS movement. They're responding to a particular
Speaker 2: boycott call from the Palestinians, and it is not discriminatory
Speaker 2: to respond to one particular groups of people's call for
Speaker 2: a boycott. I think if there were a similar movement
Speaker 2: that emerged from Tibet or Saudi Arabia, you would see
Speaker 2: that many of those same people, including myself, would be
Speaker 2: very sympathetic to
Speaker 1: it.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that there is no similar movement.
Speaker 1: And here's why the BDS movement is anti Semitic because
Speaker 1: the same people who don't think twice about using cell
Speaker 1: phones with components that are made by prison labor in China,
Speaker 1: the same people who wouldn't think twice about taking a
Speaker 1: vacation in India. Despite questions about India's position in Kashmir,
Speaker 1: the same people who wouldn't think twice about visiting Istanbul
Speaker 1: have alighted on the one state that they wish to
Speaker 1: boycott and divest from, which just by some weird coincidence,
Speaker 1: happens to be the Jewish state and the origins. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to say, but the origins of the BDS movement
Speaker 1: do not lie in the American civil rights movement. The
Speaker 1: origins of the BDs movement lie in the longstanding Arab
Speaker 1: boycott of the state of Israel, which began even before
Speaker 1: Israel came into existence, began in the early 19 forties.
Speaker 1: That partakes of the kind of odious bigotry that, of course,
Speaker 1: was ubiquitous in Nazi Germany when Jewish businesses were being
Speaker 1: boycotted for obvious and obviously anti Semitic reasons back then.
Speaker 1: So if you're gonna tell me that you oppose Israeli
Speaker 1: policy in the West Bank and therefore you're gonna boycott
Speaker 1: Israel just as you are boycotting Chinese goods, Justus, you
Speaker 1: are boycotting Russian goods and so forth and so on.
Speaker 1: Then I'm happy to make an exception for you and
Speaker 1: to say that at least you're applying your principles universally.
Speaker 1: But when you have a movement that is singularly focused
Speaker 1: on boycotting the state, that happens to be the Jewish
Speaker 1: one in a way that you're not applying that same
Speaker 1: principle equally, then that's a discriminatory and anti Semitic practice,
Speaker 1: and we should listen.
Speaker 1: People who are the victims of bigotry, whether they are black,
Speaker 1: whether they are gay or whether they are Jews, do
Speaker 1: not have the option to be idiots. They do not
Speaker 1: have the option to say, Well, let's constantly give those
Speaker 1: who are persecuting us the benefit of the doubt. On
Speaker 1: the contrary, they have an obligation not only to stand
Speaker 1: up for themselves, but they have an obligation to call
Speaker 1: out bigotry as they see it. And at least put
Speaker 1: the onus on the BDs er's or on the homophobes
Speaker 1: or on the white nationalist to say, Tell us exactly
Speaker 1: why it is that we shouldn't call out your bigotry.
Speaker 1: If you can provide a convincing explanation, then we might
Speaker 1: be willing to listen to you. But to preemptively simply say, Well,
Speaker 1: the BDS movement
Speaker 1: says it's not anti Semitic, and therefore we're going toe
Speaker 1: to accept that explanation I think is worse than foolish.
Speaker 1: It's naive, and it's an invitation for even more insidious
Speaker 1: kinds of bigotry. Look,
Speaker 2: the BDS movement is a Palestinian movement. It emerged in
Speaker 2: 2005 created by a call for Palestinian civil society, by
Speaker 2: the way, after the end of the second intifada, when
Speaker 2: Palestinians were looking for a nonviolent way off trying to
Speaker 2: gain their right. So there's something to me kind of
Speaker 2: bizarre about saying about a Palestinian movement. Why are they
Speaker 2: not focusing equally on Burma? It's a Palestinian movement created
Speaker 2: by Palestinians. Yes, its appeal to people around the world.
Speaker 2: But it was created by Palestinians because they're responding to
Speaker 2: their own basic oppression. Anyone who's spent one day in
Speaker 2: the West Bank with Palestinians will see the magnitude of
Speaker 2: that of that oppression, people who live without their whole
Speaker 2: lives without basic rights. I mean the notion that you
Speaker 2: are a bigot if you focus on one particular unjust
Speaker 2: policy you want oppose because you don't oppose all in
Speaker 2: the world with the same vigor, I just think belies reality.
Speaker 2: In the 19 seventies, the organized American Jewish community boycotted
Speaker 2: the Bolshoi Ballet because Soviets were not allowing Giusto leave
Speaker 2: the Soviet Union. And I think it was a very
Speaker 2: proud moment in American Jewish history. The Sylvian was not
Speaker 2: the worst regime in the world. At that point, there
Speaker 2: was the Camaro Rouge. There was a D Amine. So
Speaker 2: someone have said, Ah, this is bigotry. You're not equally
Speaker 2: focused on what's happening in Cambodia. In Uganda, the point was,
Speaker 2: this was a Jewish movement that was based on trying
Speaker 2: to secure rights for Jews. People have the right to
Speaker 2: try to gain liberation and for themselves. That's what the
Speaker 2: BDS movement, which comes out of Palestinian society is, and
Speaker 2: therefore I just don't think it makes sense to say
Speaker 2: that it is bigoted because those people are not equally
Speaker 2: focused on the 1,000,000 other forms of oppression that exists
Speaker 2: in the
Speaker 1: world.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the monk debate podcast, Be it resolved.
Speaker 1: Anti Zionism is anti Semitism. Arguing for the motion is
Speaker 1: New York Times columnist Bret Stephens. Peter Beinhart, contributing editor
Speaker 1: at the Atlantic, is arguing against the resolution.
Speaker 1: One final question brief on this. Before we go into
Speaker 1: your closing statements, just short summations each
Speaker 1: Bret, is there something Peters said today that would cause
Speaker 1: you to rethink a piece of your argument?
Speaker 1: No
Speaker 1: Peter saying question to you. Are you set in the
Speaker 1: thes beliefs or has Brett unsettled something that you've been
Speaker 1: thinking about in terms of this
Speaker 2: deal? I take very seriously. Bretz concern about what it
Speaker 2: would mean for Jews to enter into this very uncertain century,
Speaker 2: continue down that path without a Jewish state, and so
Speaker 2: in that regard that is something that worries me a
Speaker 2: great deal, and I fully recognize that anti Zionist and
Speaker 2: the BDS movement are led by people who don't want
Speaker 2: a Jewish state to exist. So I understand that
Speaker 2: fear and concern that Brett has it's simply that I
Speaker 2: think a lot of this just comes out of all
Speaker 2: the time that I spent with Palestinian anti Zionist. I
Speaker 2: just cannot call people in good conscience anti Semites when
Speaker 2: I know from personal experience that they're not. And they
Speaker 2: want the same things for their Children that I want
Speaker 2: for myself, is their anti Semitism among anti Zionism, The
Speaker 2: BDS movement? Yes, I've had Palestinians say to me that
Speaker 2: they've heard and they've heard anti Semitic things in BDs
Speaker 2: movement meetings that does exist. That is something that's very worrying.
Speaker 2: But it's also important for us to remember that some
Speaker 2: of the most prominent and I think dangerous anti Semites
Speaker 2: in the world today are actually supporters of the state
Speaker 2: of Israel as well.
Speaker 1: So Peter Wilson, closing remarks some up any key points
Speaker 1: you wantto leave us with, I want to
Speaker 2: briefly quote This is the Basic Law that was introduced
Speaker 2: by three Palestinian Israeli members of the Knesset last year,
Speaker 2: and they said we do not deny Israel or its
Speaker 2: right to exist as a home for Jews were simply
Speaker 2: saying that we want to base the existence of the
Speaker 2: state not on the preference of Jews, but on the
Speaker 2: basis of equality. The state should exist in the framework
Speaker 2: of equality and not in the framer of preference and superiority.
Speaker 2: I have my differences with those Palestinian members of the Knesset,
Speaker 2: but I simply don't see how one can call that bigotry.
Speaker 2: And this has very important real world implications because the
Speaker 2: definition of anti Zionism as anti Semitism which was almost adopted,
Speaker 2: for instance by the University of California system. If you
Speaker 2: say anti Zionism is anti Semitism on and should be
Speaker 2: bigotry that therefore you know, deserves penalties when it's experienced
Speaker 2: on college campuses, you're basically saying that groups like Students
Speaker 2: for Justice in Palestine, Theo entire Palestinian political movement basically
Speaker 2: is a form of bigotry and therefore doesn't necessarily have
Speaker 2: the right basic rights to free speech. I think that's
Speaker 2: deeply dangerous and dehumanizing. It's important to remember that we
Speaker 2: not only live in a time of rising anti Semitism,
Speaker 2: we also live in a time of rising Islamophobia, and
Speaker 2: we live in an age where bigotry against Palestinians is,
Speaker 2: in a way so pervasive that we don't even have
Speaker 2: a name for which is to say that people can
Speaker 2: routinely suggest that Palestinians should live their entire lives under
Speaker 2: military law without basic rights. And we don't even think
Speaker 2: about that. It's a form of bigotry. So if we're
Speaker 2: concerned about bigotry, wanna fight all forms of bigotry? I
Speaker 2: think inflating anti Zionism anti Semitism opens the door to
Speaker 2: a very profound bigotry against Palestinians, which says they don't
Speaker 2: have the right to live to express political views that
Speaker 2: are based on their own experience and their desire for equality.
Speaker 2: And I think that's a mistake.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Peter Beinhart, Bret Stephens. You're closing remarks.
Speaker 1: Israel has always been central to Jewish identity, and that
Speaker 1: was true both before there was the state of Israel.
Speaker 1: And in the 71 years that there has been a
Speaker 1: state of Israel.
Speaker 1: We're living in a period in which the evidence of
Speaker 1: rising and murderous anti Semitism is not only frightening, it's undeniable.
Speaker 1: And so to get behind on ideology
Speaker 1: that is inimical to the way in which the overwhelming
Speaker 1: majority of Jews
Speaker 1: see themselves and see their national and cultural and religious aspirations,
Speaker 1: and to argue for the elimination
Speaker 1: of the one state in the world that provides every
Speaker 1: Jew around the world with some assurance that there are
Speaker 1: means for its own self defense strikes me as inherently
Speaker 1: anti Semitic. Anyone who has a sense of moral decency
Speaker 1: cares for the rights of all embattled minorities. And I
Speaker 1: look forward to the day in which Palestinian leaders ceased
Speaker 1: to embrace groups like Hamas, which are anti Semitic and
Speaker 1: call for Israel's destruction and embrace the politics that leads
Speaker 1: to a state in which all Palestinians have democratic representation
Speaker 1: and liberal Democratic rights. While we wait for that to happen,
Speaker 1: we should be avid Zionists because to wish for the
Speaker 1: opposite is effectively leaving the Jewish people to resort to
Speaker 1: the kindness of strangers. And anyone who knows anything about
Speaker 1: Jewish history knows that that provides no long term security
Speaker 1: at all. Well, Bret Stephens, Peter Beinhart Thank you for
Speaker 1: a civil substantive conversation on a difficult, contested issue. I
Speaker 1: think we've moved the conversation forward, and it's thanks to
Speaker 1: your thoughtfulness and your ability to engage with each other much,
Speaker 1: much appreciated. Thank you thank you all the best. Thanks
Speaker 1: a lot.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to the monk debate Podcast place
Speaker 1: for civil and substandard debate on the big issues of
Speaker 1: the day
Speaker 1: To listen to more debates on everything from climate change
Speaker 1: to religion, to geopolitics, to the future of human progress.
Speaker 1: Visit our website Triple W Monk debates dot com.
Speaker 1: You can also find show notes on today's debate, along
Speaker 1: with a full transcript. Thank you for helping us bring
Speaker 1: back the art of public debate. One Conversation at a time.
Speaker 1: I'm Roger Griffiths
Speaker 1: Monk Debates are produced by Antica Productions and supported by
Speaker 1: the Monk Foundation. Roger Griffiths and Ricky Gurwitz are the producers,
Speaker 1: the executive producer of Stuart Cox.
Speaker 1: Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your
Speaker 1: podcasts and if you like us, feel free to give
Speaker 1: us a rating. Thanks again for listening