The Munk Debates Podcast - Munk Dialogue with Douglas Murray, Natasha Hausdorff, Mehdi Hasan and Gideon Levy: Looking ahead to the Munk Debate on Anti-Zionism

Episode Date: June 11, 2024

On June 17th four debaters will take to the stage at Toronto’s Roy Thomson Hall for a sold out debate on Anti-Zionism. The motion up for debate: Be it Resolved, anti-Zionism is antisemitism On this special Munk Dialogue, we speak with each of the debaters to get a sense of their arguments heading into the debate, and what it is about this particular topic that made them want to participate. Arguing for the resolution is award-winning journalist, best-selling author, and former Munk Debater Douglas Murray. His debate partner is Natasha Hausdorff, an international law expert and legal commentator on antisemitism. Opposing the resolution is Mehdi Hasan. Mehdi is a best-selling author, former MSNBC anchor, and the CEO and editor-in-chief of the new media company Zeteo. He will be joined by the award-winning Israeli broadcaster and Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy.   The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Executive Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Senior Producer: Daniel Kitts Editor: Kieran LynchBecome a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

You don't help the poor by making everybody poorer. The media has a frame, and the frame is Israel is the oppressor, and the Palestinians are the oppressed. I shouldn't be forced to acknowledge my privilege unless I desire for that to be part of my interaction with somebody else. What I know to be true and what all of my fellow Gen Z know to be true is that this is the most talented generation yet. With respect to every indicia of disadvantage, there is still a racial hierarchy. And though I am, of course, in Anglo. I'm certainly not a fucking Saxon. Hello, Monk listeners.

Roger Griffiths here, your host, moderator. Welcome to this, our continuing conversations called the Monk Dialogues. These are in-depth questions and answers with some of the world's sharpest minds and brightest thinkers. On each monk dialogue, we go deep into the big issues and ideas

that are driving the public conversation. I think a lot of people don't really know what they mean when they accuse somebody of being a Zionist. It's a debate about racism, It's a debate about the history of ideology. It's a debate about free speech. There is an agenda that we have seen across mainstream media

and increasingly on social media, which has failed to get to the heart of the causes. It will continue to ignore the world and to label the whole world as anti-Semitic. We will find ourselves as a new North Korea. On June 17th, four debaters will take to this state, at Toronto's Roy Thompson Hall in front of a sold-out audience of 3,000 people for our spring 2024 debate on anti-Zionism. The motion, be it resolved. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

On this special Monk Debates podcast, we're speaking to each of the participants who will be taking part in this important and timely event. Arguing for the Motion is award-winning journalist, author, and former monk debater, Douglas Murray. His debate park will be Natasha Hausdorff, an international law expert and legal commentator on anti-Semitism. Well, one great team of debaters deserves another. And on the opposing side of the motion, we have Medi Hassan, a best-selling author, former MSNBC anchor, and CEO of a new media company, is a tale. He will be joined by the award-winning Israeli broadcaster and columnist Gideen Levy.

On this episode, I'm speaking with each debailles. debater to get their sense of the key arguments and ideas that will animate this debate. It's an important topic for all of them. That's a big reason why they're showing up in Toronto on June 17th to take part. Our first guest is Douglas Murray, who's arguing in favor of the motion to be resolved. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Douglas, welcome to the program. Very good to be back with you.

So pleasurable, Douglas, to be back in conversation. Not only that, to have the opportunity to host you once again in Toronto on June 17th. You've graciously agreed to speak with me in advance of the debate. We're not going to get into your specific arguments. We're going to save those for the main stage itself. But I thought we could use this time together, Douglas, to just frame set this debate for our audience and your participation in it. So let's start with a question, I'm sure that was on your mind when you received our invitation to come to Toronto. What do you want to accomplish with this debate?

What do you hope that the audience can get out of it at the end of your 90 minutes on stage with Medi Hassan, with Natasha Hostorf, and Gidei Levy? Well, I hope that we can have a debate about this as seriously and sincerely as possible. The motion centers on Zionism, really. And I think in our own time, in our own lifetimes, this word has started to be used by people in a really pejorative way as a smear. And I think a lot of people don't really know what they mean when they accuse somebody of being a Zionist. But it has become a word which is used, as I say, really unpleasantly, often by pretty unpleasant people, often by just ignorant people. So I hope as always that, you know, among debates that we don't only have a bit of heat, but we have a bit of light because there needs to be a lot of light on this question. Absolutely. And I'm sure you'll bring that on June 17th. Let's talk about one of your debate opponents, Medi Hassan. You and Medi have a history. You've debated before. Both of you came away from that engagement with a kind of keen sense of each other's wrongness. Should I put it that way? Why have you agreed to debate him again?

well i mean i'm pretty um promiscuous in who i'm willing to debate with uh i debated a lot of people who i disagree with over the years quite a lot of whom by the way have ended up in prison uh but that's by the by and always unconnected with my debate i'm sure uh i don't know when i last debated mady i think it was when he was on the side of julian asange some years ago I was not on the side of Julian Assange. I regard myself as having been pretty consistent on the issue of Julian Assange, where some people used to love him on the left because he had stolen American secrets. And then some people on the right of him because he had stolen, or at least got hold of the Democratic Party's leaks and caused havoc for the Democrats ahead of the 2016 election.

And anyhow, I remained consistent in disliking Assange throughout. He did, if I remember rightly, have to leave that debate. He was on the, as I say, on Mady's side. He did have to leave that debate early because he had an ankle bracelet that was going to go off. And I think it's the first time I've ever debated. And the last time I've ever debated somebody who actually has an ankle bracelet because they need to go back and make their bail requirements. But, yeah, I think that was the last time I saw Mady for a debate.

Well, we appreciate you again, willing to debate people far and wide. It's one of the unfortunate little backstories about the monk debates is we spent a lot of time trying to convene these debates. It's amazing, Douglas, today, the number of people that simply will refuse to debate someone else. What do you think about this whole movement? You know, it's called various things, deplatforming. You know it well. It is pervasive now. and it's certainly a challenge for us.

Yeah. Why have you so conscientiously resisted the temptation amongst many of your fellow public intellectuals to say simply, I so abhorrently disagree with these arguments that I will not appear on a stage with someone who exposes them because in doing so, I'm legitimating those arguments. I mean, I've always found it an extremely weak argument. And I was brought up in a different era, an era in which if you put ideas out in public, you had to defend those ideas. And I'm very much in favor of that, as I know you are, the monk debates, because that's how

you actually hash out ideas. That's how you can sift out some wrong ones, including on your own side. That's how you find out what your opponents really mean. And I think in my own lifetime, that culture of, it's not a lot of, it's not. not just a public debate, but of public defense of your own ideas, has sort of appeared. I think back to things like, you weren't. No, Baylor wrote his famous essay about women in the, what was it, the late 60s, early 70s. He had to go to a New York town hall and defend his ideas against the young Jermaine Greer

and Susan Sontag and a whole bunch of other people. And the result, which you can see on YouTube still. It's fascinating. Everyone is gaining something. Everyone's making the odd point that lands and the odd one that doesn't. But that's what it used to be like. You couldn't just throw out claims and then say, I'm not going to defend them. But there has become a new movement of that.

You're quite right. There's this new movement that says, I'm going to throw out claims, often absolutely absurd claims, and then I absolutely refuse to platform anyone who disagrees with me. I've been trying for a while to find. a term for this beast in nature. It really needs a name because it would be actually it would be the opposite of a public intellectual, wouldn't it? Because a public intellectual has to be in public and defend their thoughts. And this new breed of whatever it is is exactly the opposite of that culture.

Absolutely well said. This debate, as you know, you mentioned, focuses on Zionism. One thing we've seen since the attacks on October 7, which is, I think, really fascinating. I love your analysis of it, is many conservatives rallying to the Zionist cause, people who are philosophically conservative, and that's across a broad spectrum, many of whom are not Jewish. And then on the other side, a reaction from the left. And again, that's a very broad spectrum, too. And there's some people on the left who have come out and supported Israel's right to self-defense. Why do you think something like this, Douglas, breaks down once again on a left-right ideological split or cleavage? I'm not sure it does, actually, Rudyard.

I mean, I think that it, because it's probably said that it largely does. But certainly in America, for instance, Israel has always been a bipartisan issue. It has been in most countries, of course, in the early years of Zionism, the international left was all on the side. of the Zionists. It's true that has changed in some quarters, but then there are, you know, remarkable people like Congressman Ritchie Torres, for instance, in the US, whose leftist credentials don't need any proving, and who has been one of the most outspoken people since October the 7th in defense of Israel. So it's true that there is a lot of noise made on all sides, as always.

but I don't think it has quite fallen out into being a strict right-left issue. And I, at any rate, would hope that it never would do any more than, you know, the existence of any other state should be regarded as a right or left issue. Do you think, though, Douglas, that, again, if we just look at preponderances, that elements of the left, especially on college campuses, have gravitated towards an anti-Zionist argument, perspective on Israel, perspective on the, this war. Is that again somehow embedded in an ideology, embedded in simply campus politics? What is that? Is it something that we need to kind of understand as its own unique moment for the left

in, let's say, America where we have seen these eruptions on college campuses? Yes, I mean, America is its own strange beast on this, and American college campuses more than It's true that everything happens on American college campuses now spills out everywhere else. You immediately get sort of mimetic versions of it on Canadian campuses, British campuses and so on. It's true that there is a sort of American student movement on that. But again, I would say it's in very specific places. There was a fascinating chart the other day that somebody worked out of. The amount of dollars spent per year by these poor benighted students' parents,

or these poor students benighted parents, I should say, where the amount of dollars they spend and the number of their child's education and the amount of protests on the campus. And the fascinating thing is that it's really only the Ivy League, the sort of $60,000 to $80,000 a year experiences, the most vehement anti-Israel protests have been happening. Go down the chart to the sort of $20,000 a year, which is still a lot of money, sort of technical college.

And lo and behold, you know, the students aren't spending all their time, living in a tent encampment, crapping into plastic bags, and pretending to hunger strike for five hours. It's a unique thing of a special privileged class in America, a sort of elite opinion, you might say. So again, I don't think it's representative of the main. I think it's just a very noisy and rather striking. for a lot of reasons rather suggestive for a lot of reasons example why is it that western

publics have rallied enthusiastically to the idea that ukraine should defend itself against an unprecedented and illegal attack on its sovereignty where we haven't extended that same privilege that same right to israel uh well here we dread on something we're bound to to get onto on the night. I've followed both conflicts up close and have written in the past in the New York Post, among other places,

about this strange disconnect. It's a disconnect that Neil Ferguson, the historian, also pointed to recently. It is very strange. It's a curiosity. It bears a lot of thinking about. But I would add that in both cases, there is a serious problem

among Western allies, wherever they fall out, on these two conflicts of the simple thing of being ready and able to aid militarily your allies when they are at war. I'm very struck by the fact, for instance, that Russia, I think since we last met the monk debates, Russia is now on a real war footing of a sort of 1940s kind. They have got arms production ramped up. They've changed their factories, their weapons independent almost, with a bit of help from China and, of course, Iran. But it's very striking to me that in both of these conflicts, sometimes in aid packages bundled together to the dissatisfaction of many American senators and congressmen, the satisfaction of others, that these two conflicts and the arming of the two countries that are our allies have been bundled together.

It's striking to me that that's necessary. I've just got back from a week around Europe speaking to people in government in Italy and Switzerland and France and the Netherlands. And it's very striking to me that despite these two wars going on, Europeans are not really aware of the fact that, you know, even even a relatively minor conflict, which actually both of these are in historic terms, seem to be wearing down Europeans in their ability to supply arms. And I think that's a very deep question under that of, you know, are we, if we fail this test, I mean, never mind the morality of it. Put that aside for a second.

But if we fail a practical test, you know, what kind of an ally is Canada? If even in a war that it supports, like the war in Ukraine, it's in no position to meaningfully arm Canada's Ukrainian allies. So I wonder in that situation, what an alliance means? Two final questions. You have really exploded into the public debate since October 7th around the war in Gaza and around the existential threats that Israel faces well beyond Gaza, from Iran to Hezbollah, to Syrian militias, a seven-front war, as it's been described. why Douglas have you particularly been galvanized by the events of October 7th?

You visited Israel right after the horrific massacres. Was it what you saw there? Does this connect to something that's bigger and broader in your philosophy and thinking? Yes, I think it goes to something very deep. And I also think it goes something very practical. You know, Radia, as a journalist, You really have to see things with your own eyes, you know. You have to report.

And that's one of the things I try to do always. I have a sort of cast iron rule. Pretty much I stick to about countries I've not been to. It's not a rule that many of my fellow journalists follow, but I try to. And yes, and I was pretty short from straight after the seventh that I need. needed to be there and see with my own eyes what had happened. Not least because sometimes the first draft of history that journalists are famously meant to write can go off a skew straight away.

And I was worried that that was going to happen. I'd probably do everything I could to ensure it wouldn't happen. Last question. Would you join us in Toronto to debate, be it resolved? we can't trust the mainstream media. I wonder what you think about that debate now 18 plus months later. Your co-partner in that debate, Matt Taibi, has continued to kind of weigh in, his criticism of the press. What's your assessment?

Where does the mainstream media find itself now? And I guess how is the mainstream media either fits? failed or been challenged by the October 7th attacks and everything that happened after? It was a very memorable and enjoyable evening. I was very pleased to have Matt Taibi on my side, or I'd never met before. And I was also glad to have Michelle Goldberg and Malcolm Gladwell opposite me, who I'd also never met before. But I think we haven't become such good friends as Matt. Yes, that is an issue.

which we'll just rumble on in our day, weren't it? There are all these things that people still talk about all the time, fake news, biased media, mainstream media. I think we'll probably live with that throughout our lives now.

We're in an interesting period where there's probably too much information out there for any of us to any individual to actually sift through. We've all got a surplus of information. At times in the human past, we had too little information. Now we've probably got too much.

much and a lot of you will find it very hard to to find their way and pick their way through it. I think that it will settle with, as I mentioned that night, settle with the mainstream media earning back its credentials as a maybe they can never be completely non-partisan, but a less partisan body, a non-campaigning body, for instance, you know, and with people picking up stuff from the non-mainstream media on the side. But I was very interested on Bill Maher's show the other week in the US, and he mentioned something about the, you know, how he said on air that he gets some criticism from people saying, you know, you're a leftist, you know, it's election year, you've got to pull behind the Democrats. And it was so funny as he said this. And both of us obviously had a revulsion towards this. I said to him, you know, that was never, that was never really the point of the media to simply sort of get behind a candidate. as I mentioned to Bill in British parlance, you know, it's always been said that the relationship between a journalist and a politician should be akin to that between a dog and a lamppost.

We're not meant to just be a sort of backing chorus in the media. And I think when the media does do that and is perceived accurately to be a backing chorus, it enormously diminishes the media's reputation. So I'd like to see the main, as I mentioned that night, you know, I'm not one for blowing up, the mainstream media. I work in the mainstream media a significant amount. I write for it. I love it. I just think that, you know, a lot of it has gone awry. Non-mainstream media will be the thing that maybe brings it back, keeps it in check. And my goodness, there are some great non-mainstream media now out there, which we all read on our phones every morning where we might have once, you know,

read the New York Times. Douglas Murray, thank you so much for spending a bit of time with us today in advance of your appearance in Toronto on June 17th for the Muck debate on anti-Zionism. We so look forward to welcoming you here and hearing your words. So be well, be safe. And again, thank you for accepting our invitation to debate in Toronto. Can't wait. See you in Toronto. That was Douglas Murray, talking to us about why he wanted to participate in the Munk debate on anti-Zionism on June 17th. A reminder that while the debate is sold out, you can stream it live from the comfort of of your home by becoming a monk a donor.

Go to our website right now, www.w.w. monk debates.com to find out how to do this now. Up next on the program, we're joined by Douglas Murray's debate partner, Tasha Hausdorff. Natasha is an international law expert and director of UK lawyers for Israel. Natasha, welcome to the program. Thank you. It's so good to be with you. Looking forward to hosting you in Toronto on June 17th for the Monk Debate on Ante

Zionism. Let's begin, Natasha, with a little bit about your own story, your own background. What are you bringing to this debate? Why did you accept our invitation to come fly all the way to Toronto to debate anti-Zionism? Well, first, who wouldn't accept an invitation to come to Toronto? I have to say, I've followed some of the monk debates in the past, and they're always of exceptional quality with extremely talented and incisive speakers. So, first, I was flattered to be asked. Secondly, of course, there's the opportunity to see Toronto. My travels have yet to take me to Canada, so I am very excited to visit your beautiful country. But I'm also honoured to partake in a debate that I think is extremely timely.

These are issues that I think we're seeing play out in debates on our television screens, even at various coffee shops, I think, on a daily basis now. And so it's an incredibly timely and an incredibly important debate to be having. Your background is as a lawyer, someone who's thought a lot about international law in particular. How will you bring those learnings, that knowledge, to the debate on the 17th? I think especially in a debate which is so divisive and controversial, perhaps, perhaps. It's incredibly important that one brings a certain analysis and lawyers and especially barristers. I'm happy to say I come from a tradition at the English bar where we are relatively

well known for our ability to get to the heart of an issue and advocate for the facts and the proper analysis. So I'm hopeful that I can bring a degree of that through the practice that I have here in the United Kingdom, the training in terms of analyzing legal texts and provide perhaps a slightly different perspective to the guests that you generally have on. And that's another reason that I was, I think, particularly moved to take up your very kind invitation. Well, we look forward to hosting you. Natasha, you certainly came to our attention to many others for your kind of fact-checking, a role that you've played since October 7 appearing in interviews with global media to talk about the war in Gaza.

What's your perceptions of how the media has covered this war to date? Do you feel that we've missed out on some key facts, some key nuance, as the media, the coverage gotten better over the last eight months. What's your take? Well, I hope that I've used the opportunities where I've been invited on various media, as you say, to fact-check and to provide a perspective which is sorely lacking. Unfortunately, I think there is an agenda that we have seen across mainstream media and increasingly on social media, which has failed to get to the heart

of the causes of what we have seen and unfortunately failed to properly report on an awful lot of the facts. But my focus has been on the misreporting of the legal developments. Chiefly, of course, with respect to the International Court of Justice, we've seen two provisional measures orders of the ICJ be utterly misrepresented in the international media. And so I also feel a sense of duty and a responsibility when I read a document and it's clear that it says something different to what is being put out in the international media, there are opportunities to correct that are important. And as I say, I come from a profession with a tradition of upholding the rule of law and speaking out where there are issues that need to be challenged. I've been privileged to have the opportunity to do

that seats significantly, I suppose, over the last seven or eight months. But this, unfortunately, is reflective of a trend that we have seen over some significant time. These are not new phenomenon. But it is something that is becoming, I think, increasingly prominent because of the frequency with which this issue is now in the media. It's so prominent that I feel reasonable people are starting to pick up on the misreporting, the false analysis. And I'm hopeful that there are a degree of interested individuals who will be looking into these matters themselves and who will increasingly be doing their own fact-checking as a result of these sorts of interventions.

One of the unfortunate byproducts of the last eight months has been a global surge in anti-Semitism. In your own country, the United Kingdom, the surge has been particularly acute. Looking at it through a legal lens, Natasha, are you concerned possibly about a lack of a law-based kind of approach to curbing anti-Semitism? Have we learned anything? Are we taking some steps towards reining in anti-Semitic behavior through our legal and judicial systems? Well, we certainly have recognized definitions that law enforcement, not just in the UK, but around the world, have been adopting at government levels at NGOs. And that has played a significant role in the approach previously to policing these sorts of instances. But because of the extreme search that you have referenced, I think it's clear that that that.

that's not enough and that the proper application of the laws that already exist on the statute books, the powers that police have are really required to nip this in the bud, or really would have been required to nip this in the bud already in October. And I'm not the only one that thinks the failure to act has unfortunately encouraged more and more of that sort of unlawful activity. We're not talking about issues of freedom of expression here. The UK has a strong tradition, which is endorsed also by provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights of freedom of expression and freedom of speech. But we're talking about instances of incitement, promotion of racial hatred, breaches of the Public Order Act,

and the phenomenon that we have seen happening in the United Kingdom, the failure of the authorities and the police in particular to act, has unfortunately been replicated around the world in other Western liberal democracies, where I think these issues are also now playing a significant role in upcoming elections, both in the US and in the UK, and also, of course, at the European Union. So much more needs to be done, but at least people are talking about it, and I think are aware of the shortcomings thus far. Final question, Natasha.

When you think about June 17th, you're here in Toronto, 90 minutes on the stage, what do you hope that the audience will take away from this debate? And maybe to try to be hopeful, even though it will be, I think, a very kind of sharp and potentially divisive debate. what is something positive that could come out of it that could help move the larger public conversation forward? I fully appreciate that the monk debate audiences are generally extremely well-informed, interested individuals. But I hope even those who feel well-versed in this subject matter will come along and have a greater degree of insight into the issues that we're due to discuss.

This is a phenomenon undoubtedly, which is present in the context of the context of the the media reporting we've been seeing over the last eight months. But the ability to delve down and properly analyze both the causes, the origins of what we've been seeing and the effects, I think that's something we'll have the opportunity to go into in serious detail and in a way that we don't really have scope to outside of the context of this month debate. Thank you, Natasha Hausdorf, and thank you again for accepting our invitation. to come to Toronto on June 17th to debate anti-Zionism. So much look forward to seeing you here and showing you the city of Toronto.

Safe travels in the meantime. I'm very much looking forward to meeting you all. Thank you. That was Natasha Housdorf. We'll be arguing in favor of the motion via resolved. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism at our June 17 debate in Toronto. Next on the program, we are joined by Medi Hassan. It will be arguing opposite Douglas and Natasha.

making the case that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism. Medi, welcome to the program. Thank you for having me. Looking forward to the actual debate. Yes, we are so looking forward to hosting you in Toronto. Thank you for being part of this important debate. If you look back over the months that this issue of Zionism has kind of claimed attention on the public stage, Are there a few seminal events or moments where you think this issue has come into focus for the broader public in a way that they might not have appreciated before?

I think the college protests, of course, Radiaud, have really focused people's minds on what's at stake here. This is not just yet another, quote, unquote, mowing of the lawn in Gaza by the Israelis, like in 2009 and 12 and 14. We've seen a lot of conflicts in Gaza before a lot of Israeli attacks on Gaza in the name of fire. fighting Hamas. But this time, of course, the scale of it is much worse. October 7th, which preceded it, was much worse than anything before. And I think what we saw on the college protest is we saw people actually protesting not just the violence, but the big picture, the scenario in the Middle East, the state of Israel, the guiding ideology, the apartheid in the occupied territories, a lot of words thrown around that you don't often hear thrown around, not just

occupation, but colonialism, apartheid, and yes, Zionism. Indeed, college campuses have been a lightning rod for this debate. What do you feel about the tenor, the quality of the conversation around these issues? I mean, one of the things we hope, and by bringing you to Toronto to be part of this conversation with your debate partner, Gideon Levy, with Douglas Murray and Natasha Hausdorff, is to try to actually convene a civil and substantive debate on on this subject. Give us a level set. How do you feel the quality of debate has been to date? On this issue very poor, I think the debate is suffused with all sorts of emotional, tribal, national, racial, religious angles, tensions, baggage, which doesn't allow for clear,

concise, as you say, substantive civil debate about, you know, a political ideology, which is what Zionism is, about a country, which is what Israel is, about what's happening to Palestinians to their rights, their dignity, their safety, security. And I think that is really what we need to get to the bottom of. People get very upset. They treat this conflict like a football game. I have my team. You have your team. And I blindly support my team and you blindly support your team. And it's very emotive. And I get why it's a motive. There's good reasons why it's a motive. But it doesn't help to have clear, rational, logical debate when everyone's just hiding behind either identity markers or emotional knee-jerk responses or claims of bigotry, which is part of

what this debate is about, the idea that if me and Gideon Levy take a position critical of Zionism, that makes us anti-Semites. And I think that is what's so fascinating about where we are today, because this debate is about so much more. It's become about so much more than just, you know, a strip of land or a government or a country. And for me, I just worry that when I see people debating Israel-Palestine, they're often talking past one another. I only want to talk about Hamas and I only want to talk about Zionism. I only want to talk about Netanyahu. I only want to talk about whatever it is.

Everyone has what they want to talk about, but their actual clash of ideas is not happening. I'm hoping we can do that on the debate stage in Toronto. So do I. So do why. The resolution you're going to debate, you mentioned it, be it resolved, anti-Zionism, is anti-Semitism. How important do you think that particular resolution is to, kind of framing maybe the essence of the bigger public conversation, the bigger public debate.

I mean, we chose it consciously for trying to capture maybe some of the foundational debates that are informing so much of the other conversation. You've accepted our invitation, so I hope by biological deduction, we can confer that you also think this is an important thing to be debating, this specific resolution. It's hugely important because the motion, which I think is a smear, has become very popular and has become a very mainstream. And a lot of people who don't follow this stuff closely, they kind of go along with it or they're bullied into going along with it. Or governments will pass. I don't know if people are following this at home.

The definitions of anti-Semitism, the big debate over the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism, which many would argue precludes certain criticisms of Israel. So there's a lot in this motion. It's a debate about racism. It's a debate about the history of ideology. It's a debate about free speech and what you can and can't say. And it's a debate about what's actually happening in Gaza right now, which some of us consider to be a genocide and what role the political ideology that guides the state of Israel and the current government of Israel, what that plays in fueling that genocide and the ethnic cleansing. There's a lot of history at stake here. When we talk about Zionism, you have to go back to Theodore Herzl. You have to go back at the bow for. So there's a lot going on.

Talking about history, you and another debater who will be on the stage arguing in favor of the motion, Douglas Murray, have some history together. I'll understand. In the past, you've indicated that you did not want to debate Douglas again, based on your experiences with him on stage previously. You've graciously accepted our invitation to debate him again. in part, he'll be joined by Natasha Hustorf. Why did you agree to do this?

Is it the topic and the focus of the debate? Do you think that there's something particular about the argument that commands your presence, your attention in Toronto? Is it time to pull out? I did agree to do the debate for the topic, not for Douglas. I've turned down many opportunities to debate Douglas on TV or on debate platforms in recent years. There are many reasons for that. I explain it in my book when every argument. It's not so much that I don't have a problem in Debating Douglas. I think he's a very good debater. It's to do with the fact of platforming someone with his views, which I dislike, and I'm sure he feels the same way about me. And good luck to you, ready on moderating on the 17th. But I will say that we go back 15 years or more. But what I would say is it is a topic fundamentally. It's such a big subject. It's so important to me that I felt that, yes, I will accept this invitation, go to Toronto, one of my favorite cities in the the world. Monk debate. I've never done a monk debate. I've got to say, as somebody debates,

it was a great appeal to do a monk debate on stage. I've done Intelligence Squared. I've done Oxford Union. I've done Cambridge Union, et cetera, et cetera. So it was a great opportunity to come to a great debating venue to argue about one of the biggest issues in the world today. I mean, there's no bigger issue in the world today than what is happening in Gaza right now. No, we really appreciate you accepting the invitation. It's often, it is. It's challenging to to accept an invitation to be with people who, as you say, you might have really fundamental moral disagreements with. So I think it's a credit to you and a credit to all the debaters that you're seeing beyond those differences, they will remain, they will always be there, but to

the larger purpose of the debate, we can't have these debates unless people agree to debate and we're so thankful that you have. I have to say there was a certain appeal to also debate not just there was not an appeal to debating against douglas but there was an appeal to debating alongside gideon levy who is one of my journalistic heroes from harrits so that was definitely um an incentive i know he's looking for it too well just finally meddy you have been as you mentioned part of a number of debates you're a very skilled debater and communicator what do you want to get out of this evening if there's a takeaway for the audience what do you want to leave them with at the end of your 90 minutes on stage

Two things. One, I would want them to walk away thinking, you know what? Never considered the issue like that before. There's a new way to think about this issue. And number two, I want to win. And finally, tell us about your new endeavor. Zadio Media, what are you doing there? What's the platform about? How can people get on it? How can people find you and your journalism? So after I left MSNBC in January of this year, I decided. to go it alone, start my own media venture. It's called Zeteo. Zeteo. You can check it out, Ziteo.com.

It comes from the ancient Greek word meet, which means to seek out, to inquire, to look for the truth, which is what we're trying to do in a media environment, suffused with lies and deceptions and gas-sliding in an age of kind of serial grifters and conmen who have taken over our politics and our public square. And we are trying to do bold, unfiltered, outspoken journalism, not hide behind lazy euphemisms,

take on the big issues, whether it's the genocide in Gaza, whether it's rising fascism here in the United States. We've got a great slate of contributors, Naomi Klein from Canada, Greta Tunberg from Sweden, Owen Jones from the UK, John Harwood and Basimusuf here in the US. So it's a great venture. We're having a lot of fun,

and I hope doing important journalism. So do please check us out if you're watching on this thing at home. Absolutely. We will and we'll include those links in the show notes. Medi Hassan, thank you so much for talking with us before this much-anticipated debate in Toronto. Safe travels. And again, so looking forward to hosting you here in Toronto on June 17th.

Thank you, Radion. That was Medi Hassan who will be arguing against the motion, be it resolved. Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism at our monk debate on June 17th. Our last interview is with Medi's debate partner, Gideon Levy. Gideon is a well-known Israeli calmist and journalist, a fierce critic of Israel. domestic and foreign policy.

Gideon, welcome to the program. I'm so happy to be here. How would you define Zionism? There is a longer answer in the short one, and I'd rather take the short one now and keep something for the debate. I think that today Zionism has one meaning, and this is a Jewish supremacy

between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. There is no other explanation. Zionism was vital to create the state of Israel, to give a safe place for hundreds of thousands of Jews, refugees from the Holocaust, including my parents. But the moment that the state of Israel was created and was well established, we don't need this anymore. We have to build something new. something which has some connection to the reality on the ground. And the reality on the ground is that between the river and the sea, all this territory which has ruled by Israel, there are two people living, not one. And one people is not only not Zionist, but also anti-Zernius for very good reasons.

We cannot continue with this supremacy of one people over the other and this was the moment when I realized it that I separated myself from Zionism. How would you define anti-Semitism? Antisemitism is much easier to define. It's hatred of Jews because they are Jews, nothing but this. Gideon, why did you want to participate in this debate? When the organizers approached me, first I was happy for a debate at all, because debates, public debates, are becoming, at least in my country, very rare,

and everything is only personal and nothing is really ideological, and an opportunity for a really discussion to the depths of things, to the core of issues, is very rare in my place in Israel. But then when I heard the topic, I was even happier, because I think that this is one of the most essential questions, which has many consequences, many, many consequences in Israel and around the world, on the Jewish community, but not only on the Jewish communities all over the world. And it is a topic which is hardly touched, for sure, not touched enough.

And it became so actual after the 7th of October when Israel is turning into a Paris state and the supporters of Israel and the Israelis and the Jews, the Jews, and the Jews, Jewish communities, part of them are blaming the entire world in anti-Semitism. That's exactly the moment to have this debate. Israelis are witnessing a strong pro-Palestinian sentiment that has engulfed much of the Western world, particularly amongst younger people since October 7. How do they feel about the changing political attitudes towards Israel? Israelists for years, the Israeli society had built a protection wall in front of the world.

I think there is no society in the world which lives in such a denial like the Israeli society. And the media is the biggest collaborator with this phenomena in which there is a society which does not look at the reality as it should be. looked, but through all kinds of filters which enable us to feel so good about ourselves. You've seen all the polls, the Israelis are very happy, at least until the 7th of October. Why are they happy? Mainly because they live in denial. Now, they see the world as almost totally anti-Semite.

They see the world as hating Israel, no matter what Israel does. Jews no matter what they do. And that's a wonderful way to ignore the fact that maybe we carry some responsibilities for the hatred or the critics against Israel. Maybe there is something that we should check ourselves. But once you say it is the world, it's not us, the world is anti-Semite, so we shouldn't bother about what we are doing. We can do everything.

The consequences are a pariah state. This will be the consequence of this, because if we'll continue to ignore the world and to label the whole world as anti-Semitic, no matter what Israel does, we will find ourselves as a new North Korea. Do you see the U.S. support as instrumental to Israel's security and safety? I don't think that the Israeli arrogance realizes the meaning of the support of the United States. Being so arrogant, you hear the right wing, mainly the right wing in the settlers. They say, we are not the vassals of the United States. We are not part of the United States.

We are an independent state, and we can do whatever we want. And the United States will not dictate us what to do. None of them is aware or wants to be aware to the price. Israel cannot exist right now without the United States, practically, not politically, not economically, and not militarily, and not diplomatically. But it's very hard to admit it, to realize it. So we are playing this game as if we don't care about the United States. And that's the mood in Israel.

We don't care about the world. We really don't care. We all remember what David Ben-Goyon said once, no matter what the world says, matters what the Jews are. doing. And that's the way we see it. We are behind the world. We are above the world. We are totally independent and strong enough to do whatever we want. We don't need the world. Anti-Zionists don't believe that Israel should exist as a Jewish ethno state. But what happens if Israel does cease to exist? What would the day after scenario look like for you?

First of all one thing must be clear, because this you hear again and again that someone who is not a sirenist wants the extermination of Israel or sending the Jews back to Europe or sending them to the ocean. Not at all. People like me who were born here who will never leave Israel, who never thought to leave Israel, for me it is just changing the system, changing the ideology, changing the regime, turning an apartheid state into a democracy. That's the whole story. It's not extermination of Israel and it's not the end of Israel.

It's the end of Israel as a Jewish state, yes. It's either being democratic or Jewish. You can't have it both as long as you control the seven million. Palestinians, there's no other way but to decide between being democratic or being Jewish. And my choice is very clear, democratic. Do you believe that Jews and Palestinians can live alongside each other peacefully in a Palestinian majority country? First of all, we don't face any majority right now because it's now equal.

It's around 7 million Jews and 7 million Palestinians, all of them together between the river and the sea. And there are no indication that it will turn into a huge Arab majority because also the Jews are growing quite dramatically, mainly obviously the Orthodox Jews. But I don't see a big gap between the two peoples. Now, can they live together? First of all, they're living together.

They're living in one state, at least for the last 56 years. We are living in one state. Good, bad, we are living together. in certain places it's better, in certain places it's a blood bath, but we are living together. What I suggest, and people like me suggest, is to add one value to this state, this unbelievable, unusual value of equality. That's all what I ask for, equality. And I believe there will be real equality, the atmosphere.

the atmosphere will gradually, it will not happen in one day. It didn't happen in one day in South Africa, and we know that the South African experience is not a very good one, and still South Africa today is a much more just place than before the revolution, before the democratization of South Africa. It is a long way to go, but it has some vision. I don't see any other solution,

because otherwise we will leave it either an apartheid state or a democratic state. There is no third way. Okay, my last question to you as a personal one. You face a lot of criticism within Israel for your commentary and critiques of your country and its policies. Can you talk to us a little bit about that now and how you've had to deal with your own security issues and threats because of the positions you've advocated? First of all, I am privileged from a few aspects.

I'm Jewish, which is by definition. a privilege in Israel. I work for Hararets, which is a quite respectable platform. And I cannot complain. I really don't complain about me and my rights

and my voice. It is being heard. I'm not censored. For sure, I don't face until now. It might change very soon. But until now, I never faced pressure from the government, from the army, from the secret services, nothing. The only unpleasant experience is obviously the street,

the social media, here and there are very annoying incidents. But, you know, I am really not important enough to make this as an issue. The fact is that I can express myself, really, I'm not taking it for granted. I'm not sure it will continue like this. they are very worrying signs that this age is going to be over soon, very soon. I see the signs, but until

now I have my freedom of speech and I cannot complain, yes, people scream at me all kind of very unpleasant screams. I was splitted once, I was attacked once. I had bodyguard once. Still, I

feel that my voice can be heard and that's enough for me. I don't ask for more than this. Wonderful. We're looking forward to it. Same for me. Very exciting. Well, that wraps up today's special edition of the Monk Dialogues. Thank you to all of our guests, Douglas Murray, Natasha Hausdorff, Medi Hassan, Gideon Levy. They've certainly given us a lot to think about.

If you have questions or feedback on what you've just heard, please email us at podcast at monkdebates.com. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of civil and substantive dialogue, one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Reddy Griffiths. The Monk Debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundation. The Monk Debates podcast is produced by Ricky Gerowitz and Daniel Kitts. Karen Lynch is the editor. Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcast. And if you like us, feel free to leave a five-star rating. Thank you again,

for listening.