Judge Dennis Davis and Professor David Peimer
Revisiting the Zionism/Racism Debate in the Present Climate, Part 2

Judge Dennis Davis and Professor David Peimer | Revisiting the Zionism/Racism debate in the Present Climate, Part 2 | 06.20.21

• [David] Okay.

• [Judi] Okay.

• [Dennis] Okay, thanks.

• [Judi] Wendy seems to have dropped the connection, so we’ll give her a minute or so to come back online.

• [Dennis] The fragilities of connections.

• [Judi] I know. So, while everyone is joining us, I see that someone has raised their hand under the participant thing. We are not going to be able to unmute you. If you do have a question for any of the speakers then please pop it onto the Q&A. There is a Q&A button next to the word, “Participant.” I’m not sure, top or bottom of your screen. Please don’t raise your hands. Wendy, you’re on mute. Hi, Wendy. It seems to be a very poor connection.

• [Wendy] Good morning everyone.

• [David] Hi. Hi.

• [Dennis] Hello.

• [Wendy] Good morning. Hi.

• [Judi] Wendy, we have got a very bad connection with your Zoom today.

• [Wendy] A very bad. So, I just want to say Happy Father’s Day to everybody.

• [David] Thanks, Wendy. And to you and your family also.

• [Dennis] Yeah, suppose we’d better carry on, David.

• Okay, thanks. Well, you know what? I’ve got such a I’m going to just hand over to you guys to continue. Thanks for joining us once again, and we’re going to be doing Zionism and Racism two. Thanks. .

• [David] Thanks Wendy.

• [Judi] Thanks Wendy. So over to you, David.

• [David] Okay, shall we start?

• [Dennis] Yes, David, you’re kicking off.

• [Judi] Over to you, yes.

• [Dennis] Yeah, keep going.

Visuals displayed throughout the presentation.

• Welcome everybody, and hope everyone is well and keeping safe, and family’s okay. Dennis and I are going to do the second part of our Zionism and racism debate, and just go into some more detail of some of the ideas that we were alluding to last week. I’m going to kick off, and then Dennis will pick up in the second half. Just to take a bit further what I was speaking about last week, in terms of for racism, there has to obviously be prejudice. So, what is prejudice? What is racism?

In terms of being anti-race, and anti-Jewish race, compared to anti-religion and nation. The idea being that first, there was anti-religion, then anti-race, and then anti-nation, given the state of Israel. And now, it’s a conflation of those three ideas happening. When one thinks of Antisemitism, one has to think of those three ideas. And when one imagines this notion of Zionism as racism, one again has to look at those three in relation to how the nature of prejudice is working its way through them.

This leads us onto one of our main ideas, which I’m going to talk about today, which is scapegoating. Why the Jews were scapegoated through centuries in the past, and why it continues into our current century at the moment. This idea of the scapegoat, the blame. And how that links to Antisemitism, racism, and Zionism in this religion race nation trio of ideas. I’m going to briefly go on then to look at some examples of how it’s been expressed in the West, and then some current examples, how it has come from some Muslim countries in the last number of decades.

Also, it’s vitally important to touch on the idea of the Holocaust, because, such a pivotal, horrendous moment in human history and obviously Jewish history. One cannot really discuss much without bringing that in. And the final idea is going to be ideas on what has become known as the Nazification of Israel by external forces who fit into the scapegoat trope, and how they’re feeding that trope, but with an extraordinary, profound and deeply, deeply disturbing combination of Nazism with Zionism. Just to kick off, here is this phrase that I found from Anne Frank. Let’s remember she was 13, 14, when she wrote this.

“What one Christian does is his own responsibility. What one Jew does is thrown back at all Jews.” This is Anne Frank in her diary, and understanding and encapsulating in one sentence the sense of a remarkable teenager understanding this whole idea of the blame, the scapegoat and how it has manifested throughout centuries and obviously during her time, and how it moves all the way through into ours.

Then, the Rabbi Sacks’ phrase, which I mentioned earlier: “First they hate us for our religion, then as a race, now as a nation.” Sacks is the one to put together these three ideas, which I think are fundamental to the notion of prejudice, Antisemitism and Zionism.

And then lastly, “Pariah or parvenu.” Hannah Arendt in her superb book, Origins of Totalitarianism, speaks about how the Jew is seen either as a pariah, and usually within a host nation, which led to the Antisemitism of the parasite on the host nation. The images of the rat and the flea, et cetera, which have been taken up obviously to an extreme level by the Nazis, but was there before and after. Or the parvenu, the upstart who comes to the host nation and makes good. The immigrant upstart who makes good, very good the parvenu.

And both of them are opposite ends of the same coin for Arendt. What’s fascinating is how she understands the position of the Jew in those two terms. What I’m going to mention later is how this idea of the pariah linked to Anne Frank’s notion, from the pariah of the individual Jew to the pariah of the Israeli state. And therefore, Zionism fits into a pariah movement as it were. And also, ironically, a parvenu movement, small country, small nation, upstart made good. But more the pariah in our own terms.

These three notions from these three different thinkers and remarkable minds are going to feed in today to be more specific. Because the interesting thing is that 30 years after the Holocaust was when this debate happened, 1975, the mid ‘70s in the UN, on Zionism and racism. 30 years, that’s all it took. Three decades. Quite remarkable, actually.

So where does it come from? It can’t just have arisen suddenly. It’s obviously building on something which goes back centuries, and why the Jews should be the perfect scapegoat. Obviously, there’s the much bigger picture, which is the Cold War context, 'cause this is the '70s, going through to the late part of the '90s. Obviously, it’s linked to the Cold War in a geopolitical sense, and the Western or American Soviet Cold War intricacies, which I’m not going to go into. But obviously, in terms of voting, the countries which voted one way or the other tended generally, and I use the word advisedly, generally decide with Soviet or the West or the American.

One must mention the geopolitical context of this debate. I don’t want to go too much. Zionism, Trudy and others far better than me have done that. But fundamentally, it is a liberation. It is a movement of national selfhood, which is celebrated when many other nations want it, and many other nations desire it. So why is it labelled racist? Which we will explore. Why is it labelled anti-Jewish, Antisemitic? Which we will explore as well. What’s important is, just to give you one example, after the Second World War, in the mid-late '40s we have the British Empire. The British leave India fast, and what happens? They get out Scot free.

It’s reckoned about seven British are killed. Then India descends into hell. And the partition between Pakistan and India happens. It’s a very under-researched topic in the west, but certainly not in India and Pakistan and many other countries around the world. That partition led to the deaths of at least 1 million, up to 2 million human beings, at least 75,000 recorded rapes, many other horrific figures. The brutality, the blood shedding was of an extraordinarily brutal and violent nature. I’m just using that as one example after the British Empire. Palestine, the Middle East, Israel, also after the British Empire. I don’t want to go into the details of policy, but one partition, there were many others, obviously, that were happening throughout the world.

But one very important and crucial partition globally, that was the result. Pakistan, Bangladesh, all you can imagine. It needs to be researched, it needs to be understood in the context of partition and the context of an empire leaving, and what happens to the previously conquered nations. Of course there was Greece, Turkey, end of the First World War, et cetera. What is perceived is that as Israel wins the '67 war and moves on, what is perceived, and I would propose, gets suggested into popular consciousness and imagination of the non-Jewish world, a certain segment, is that David becomes Goliath. And this is important. It’s a religious reference, which is obviously known everywhere in the world.

And so the victim, David, fights back, but becomes the Goliath. Who becomes the coloniser. One can also think of Zulu nationalism. As we all know, the Zulu started as a very small, mainly agricultural ethnic group. But then along came Shaka and others, et cetera, forged it into what has become known in reality, in history, in the popular imagination, this mythical, I suppose if you like, militant force, in terms of an historical perception. I’m not saying contemporary. An historical perception. And ironically celebrated by the British Empire at the time. They stood up to the biggest, greatest empire in human history.

It’s many examples of nationalisms rising, of race and nationalism combining, of partitions, et cetera. Why the singling out of one small little group of desperate refugees coming into a little piece of the Middle East? Obviously, there was the deicide, but I’m not going to go into that. Trudy’s dealt without a lot, and others. But after the '67 war, Jewish power, David becomes Goliath. Jewish power is perceived. I’m talking how the Antisemitism has shifted from religion to race to nation. Shifted, and the '67 war and after it, where Israel becomes defined as a colonial state. We have the subtle but important distinction between criticism of the so-called settler colonising state, and the demonization of the Jew. The pariah of the individual of Anne Frank has become the upstart, has become the pariah of the world.

That is the link from pre-Second World War, to post Second World War. Let’s also not forget: where does it all come from? There’s few examples from history. Martin Luther, his book. It’s really, really powerful and important to read. The vitriolic hatred of the Jews is extraordinary in his book on the Jews and their lies. He advocated burning synagogues, burning Jewish homes, and if all else failed, burn the Jews. Martin Luther. We all know the classic stereotype of the Jews were blamed, scapegoat, for the black death, where one third of inhabitants of Europe and Britain died, one third. And who gets blamed? The Jews.

Why are a lot of Jews dying at far lesser rate than others? Theories are because they wash their hands, because of religious traditions going back. Other theories: they don’t eat with other religious groups, et cetera, et cetera. There’s less mixing and so on. Whatever the theories, but the scientific possible theories. But the reality is that they’re blamed and scapegoated. Can we imagine the Holocaust for a moment? One third of the Jewish people are murdered within a couple of years. Let us imagine one third of Britain. 22 million Brits being murdered. Let’s imagine one third of America. Over 110 million murdered in the space of a few. Wherever we go in the world, a third of an entire population is exterminated.

What can only be the result of that most extreme trauma of history? I want to go on to another example of where this comes from. Again, I’m really just giving a few to show from the black death, the scapegoat, to these other ideas of Martin Luther, to religion, et cetera. On a cultural level. These are two posters. And on the left, Christopher Marlowe, who lived, I’m sure everyone knows, at the time of Shakespeare. One of the great writers. He died in a brawl. He was stabbed, he was having a fight in a pub. Died at a very young age, in his late 20s. And would’ve gone on to be, I think, an amazing writer.

Anyway, this is from the performance of his work. This is the post of 1633. Now, notice it’s called The Tragedy of the Rich Jew of Malta. Today, it’s just called the Jew of Malta. As it was played before the king and da, da da. And on the right is from the production by Shakespeare in 1600 in London, The Most Excellent History Of The Merchant of Venice With The Extreme Cruelty Of Shylock The Jew.

Today, it’s just called The Merchant of Venice. I’ll show this to you. Written by William Shakespeare. You can see 1600. just two examples on the cultural level, and I’m not talking about these writers, I’m just talking about on the cultural level, the perception needed in order to get the word out. These plays are on in the early 1600s in England. And then, here to show you, of course the Shylock who for me, is the ultimate archetype, because what is it bringing? It’s not only race and nation, it’s also religion and race. And of course, the money. The rich Jew, the money lender.

On the left, this is Patron Pacino’s fantastic film where he played Shylock. And on the right is an old picture from the late 1600s of Shylock. The Jew with the knife, the Jew with the scales to weigh the pound of flesh that he’s going to cut out of Antonio’s flesh. Antonio is the merchant, by the way. Not Shylock. Shylock’s the Jew. Antonio is the merchant in the Merchant of Venice, who is lent money by Shylock, as we all know. But look at Pacino. He’s captured it brilliantly. He’s portraying the non-Jewish perception of Shylock: cunning, dark, evil, manipulative, dirty. Manipulator, will trick you at any moment. Filthy, cunning in the pejorative sense of the word, the Jew. The rich one, the money lender, who does usury.

Because usury, of course, as everyone knows, was considered a sin for these many centuries. But it provided comfortably the ruling class of not only England, but of Europe, the ruling class for a people to hate, because only the Jews were allowed to do usury, get interest on their money. It meant that the kings could remain relatively blameless. They could take money from the Jew, but they could always blame the Jew whenever they wanted, because if any people wanted to borrow money, go to the Jew, borrow, but have to pay interest, which wasn’t allowed for Christians.

So it’s again, blamed by the king, blamed by people for the rich and for charging interest. The scapegoat. The Jew afterwards is blamed as a scapegoat for being a warmonger. We build up to the war. Hitler’s speeches, “If there is a Second World War, the international jury.” Blame the pacifist is the Jew. Blame the rich banker, the Shylock stereotype, for exploiting the poor, needing interest. Blame the revolutionary communist, the Jew. So we have this extraordinary ability over human history into our own times of blaming, scapegoating Jews.

First religion, then race, and now, country, nation, for all the problems or misfortunes of any other ethnic group in the west. In China, Japan, elsewhere, totally different. India, everywhere. Totally different, obviously. In the East, and I would suggest in many parts of Africa, totally different. This is only the West. The scapegoat, the blaming, I feel is a profound idea. I’m going to pick up on this next week when I’m going to go into much more depth on Jean Paul Sartre’s remarkably brilliant book called the Antisemite and the Jew, where he takes this idea and goes into a much more fascinating depth psychologically, philosophically, on examples in France. The money is brought in as well. The money lender. As the enlightenment and emancipation.

Sartre argues that if the Jew did not exist, the Antisemite would have invented the Jew. What he means is that people in any culture need some other, to demonise, to scapegoat, to blame for their misfortune and their ills, economic, social, cultural, whatever. Their problems. We always need a scapegoat to blame for whatever it is. And Sartre takes that out. Therefore, if it hadn’t been the Jew, it would’ve been invented by the antisemite. That’s Sartre’s fundamental argument, which I’m going to go into much more detail next weekend.

After the Enlightenment, during the 1800s, the Jews become more or less emancipated through many parts of Europe and the world. And what’s fascinating: at the same time, the European colonisation takes off like a rocket. France, Britain, Germany to a lesser degree, Italy, smaller, et cetera. But Norway. Sorry, Denmark. In all the countries, Belgium, the Congo, and many others, Portuguese, Spain. The colonisation becomes turbocharged and almost like a frenzy that grips Western European nations. And what do they use in colonisation? The example of the other.

But they frame the other as a racial inferior, and therefore the host, the British, the French, the Portuguese, the Spanish, the Italians, et cetera, as the racial superior. And that fundamental difference is when race kicks in. First religion, as I said, then race. The demonization turns to the racial, the pseudo-scientific theories of a complete misunderstanding of Darwin kick in. And it becomes a fundamentally racist attitude, which then Hitler and many others pick up on later. Antisemitism is not only religious, it becomes racial.

Later, as I said in the 20th century, nation. Some key dates. In the 1890s, the protocols, as everyone knows, where the idea of the conspiracy takes over of the Jews. The Jews want to control the world. Not only money, not only communists, et cetera, but want to control. So, who to blame? The Drapers Affair, 1894 grips France. Takes over parts of Western Europe. In Vienna. Remember, this is part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, huge in Europe at the time. 1897 to 1910. This guy, Carl Luger, this highly Antisemitic mayor of Vienna, which is a vital centre of the Austro-Hungarian empire and colonisation in the world, and in controlling Europe. He uses money, the economy and the Antisemitism to gain the support of the small ordinary businessman who is suffering because of the huge surge in big multinational capitalism in Austria and the empire. Who to blame? Not the king.

So, Antisemitism becomes the basis. And now it moves into the 20th century, where after the establishment of Israel, the '67 war, it becomes the basis for blaming the nation, as I’ve mentioned before. Not seen as a movement of national self determination, but blaming the nation. The Jewish state becomes equalised to the colonising state of Western Europe as I’ve mentioned in these examples. What’s also important, and we’re going to look at a few images in a moment, and then I’m just going to couple more ideas then hand over to Dennis, where Nazism becomes equated with Zionism in the Muslim world and others, where the Holocaust becomes in a phrase, de-Judaized. Where it becomes framed as a genocide like any other genocide.

I want to argue against that, because if one does, then it doesn’t have a uniqueness. One loses it. And in fact, many on different sides of the political spectrums wanted to call it Genocide Day. Yes, of course those are genocides: Armenia, Rwanda, everywhere. It’s massive, horrific. Bosnia genocide. But I do not believe it can be equated to the Holocaust. And I’m trying to be objective here as a cultural thinker, not only as a writer, director of theatre, et cetera. But I believe it is something unique in the annals of human history and trauma.

The problem with it becoming a genocide like others, is what it can lead to if it’s not seen as part of the Jewish history and story. Then it leads onto, as I’ve said, this idea of the state of Israel, the demonization and criticism, the difference between criticising Israeli policy and demonising Israel, and therefore Zionism, therefore the religion, the race, the nation, et cetera, as opposed to criticising. The shift comes from the embodiment of evil, as Anne Frank said, from the individual Jew to the Jewish state. It becomes seen as a uniquely racist state.

In the comparison between other nations which became colonisers, we think of Britain and France, Belgium, Germany, et cetera. Even the Soviet Union later colonising eastern Europe. It’s about the host nation going to another country, putting it crudely, colonising usually for resources, cheap or slave labour. And then, taking the fruits and the product and the money back to the home country, sending the diamonds back to the queens, sending the gold, et cetera, et cetera. So, that’s the whole point of colonisation, is to get rich back at home.

Well, this is then a different kind of colonising. This is desperate, people coming out of the extermination and of the Holocaust, desperate for a home, having no home, nowhere to go, desperate to try and set up a land. As I said, then, it flips back into the old tropes, the old stereotypes after the '67 war. And a couple of quick examples to give you here. This is now to see prejudice in terms of religion, race, and nation, in terms of the contemporary Muslim world. This is fairly recent image from the cover. These are from the Arab world. Struggle between the Koran and the Talmud. You can see the knife, et cetera. It’s a book.

This is another one. And I’m not talking about Sharon and his policies at all. I’m just looking at this. And this is where Sharon is called here devouring Palestinian children. The combination of the grotesqueness of extermination and Israel. This is comparing the Israeli army and the cruelties, the crimes of the Israeli army compared to the crimes of the Nazis. The two soldiers almost similar. This here is Sharon as Hitler’s successor. You see the two. The image I think speaks for itself.

These are a few of many, many one can find proliferating throughout the internet, et cetera. And then lastly, I’m going to hand over to Dennis. This is from the early 2000s, from my hometown in Durban. We all know the massive conference on racism. It is a fact, racism of Zionism and Israel. And did one ever think to see the Star of David and the swastika put together like that?

In all of this, what I’ve been trying to show is how these ideas work together under the umbrella heading of it’s now the nation linking religion and race from before to the attack on the nation. The idea of Antisemitism has to be linked, as one can see, all the way through to this ridiculous idea of one national liberation movement for national self-determination being couched in the same way, if you like, as something as extreme as the Nazis. And that it is an extremely racist notion. Dennis, over to you.

• [Dennis] Thanks very much, David. Let me start where I left off, and I will link it to what David has said during the course of my remarks. You may recall that I spoke about Hertzog’s famous 1975 speech at the United Nations. I played you a few minutes of it, and I suggested to you that he was making three claims in this particular seminal speech that he gave at the time.

The first, of course, was the question of the antisemitic prism through which much of the, if you wish, debate and the source of that resolution were predicated. I think David has explained that comprehensively, and I have no desire to say anything more, other than say you must take that as it is. I think that’s right, completely right, obviously. But it is interesting that Hertzog was clever enough, astute enough, thoughtful enough, to realise that simply to argue that, “You’re all a bunch of Antisemites and this is why you say what you’re saying,” wasn’t sufficient.

Sometimes I wish that we would follow that particular stricture as we plough our way through the 21st century, because there is a positive case to be made up. Since what we’ve done over these two sessions to divvy up, as it were, the negative and the positive because they’re interrelated. It’s just convenient, perhaps for me, that I do the positive stuff, which in some ways, that’s more difficult. Thank you, David. But there we are.

And I suggested to you at the time that he was making two claims. The one claim, and David has spoken about this towards the end of his remarks today, were terribly important was the idea of Zionism, however so defined as a national liberation movement of the Jewish people. I want to come back to that. The second, because it’s perfectly understandable from where Hertzog is coming, that in fact the whole idea of the state of Israel at the time was to reconcile, and this is terribly important to my argument, was to reconcile the Democratic and the Jewish. It is a point that many Zionist theorists have struggled over for a very long time.

But it is the quintessential issue which we must talk about without actually fearing to confront it. Because it seems to me that it unlocks this entire debate from the other side. That is, from the social justice side. I’ll return to that presently, if I may. But let me get to the point about the claim that Hertzog made, which now needs to be updated perhaps or reflected upon insofar as the question that Zionism represented the national liberation movement of the Jewish people.

Now, it might well be, with the benefit of hindsight, easy to see why it would be that a national liberation movement to the Jewish people predicated on the idea that it had to be in the land of Israel, and not in Uganda, or Madagascar or any other sort of bizarre suggestions that were made previously. It’s easy to see that an Arab population that was already there, as were we. I’m not suggesting we weren’t there. Of course, central to my argument. That they would feel that their land was being taken over by outsiders.

And particularly in the light of Hertzog’s very European orientated view about, “We’ve got to come along basically, and we would bring Western civilization to that era.” That didn’t make the matter any easier. But I think the fundamental point that I want to make was that the Jewish people and Zionists had a legitimate claim to a land in which there had been local residents throughout this period, 1800 years. That in fact it was central to their identity. This was not a question of, as it were, being colonialists. This is not a question of Jan van Riebeeck coming to the Cape and setting up a 17th century version of Nando’s or something, where people can get a sort of quick bite and some refreshment before they went onto India.

This wasn’t a question of a colonial enterprise, as such. It was central to Jewish identity, and therefore the idea of a national liberation movement had to be seen through the framework of these aspirations which had gone on through the millennia. I mentioned last time, and I will say again, when we say things like that, when we pray each day about returning to Zion with God’s compassion, God’s help, that was central. That was central.

The fact that we end every Pesach saying, that was central to the prayers of Jews throughout the appalling periods in which they were really being subjected to the most extraordinary levels of persecution and of Antisemitism, the kind that David has documented. It cannot be abstracted from the debate. This is not a colonial project in the way that in fact others were. In this particular connection, I would recommend to you a very interesting book by Phyllis Chesler some years ago called The New Antisemitism.

Now, I just want to make the point that she was a real Jewish feminist, who certainly wanted to reconfigure the whole idea of the Jewish tradition in ways which I certainly support, but the simple point I’m making: it wasn’t talking about some xenophobe here who wrote this book. And that’s important to me, because she says that you can’t accept that Zionism fits the definition of imperialism. It was not a movement backed by any nation seeking to acquire additional land or plunder resources.

In fact, it took a long time for anybody to back the Zionist idea, and we’ve heard that from Trudy throughout. According to her, Zionism was a movement of people escaping from racism. It wasn’t an imperialistic movement bent on ethnic cleansing. She compares us to a hypothetical situation in which Native Americans were being expelled from America, create a movement for self-determination are given a small tract of land in America over which they could establish their own nation. No one would then call them imperialists or racists for wanting their own land for which they could therefore vindicate the right to self determination.

I think it’s important to grasp that fundamental issue, and I think that’s what Hertzog was talking about. It often gets lost in the wash. It needs to be understood. That, however, raises a second point, which is of course the difficulty that when we talk about Zionism, we are not talking about one homogeneous idea. Trudy mentioned this earlier, I think, last week, sorry, Sunday when she spoke about different forms of Zionism, relying upon a book that I can certainly recommend, which of course is the work by Arthur Hertzberg. The Zionist Idea. Well in fact, I know has been updated more recently by Gil Troy.

By the way, he also wrote a book called The Fate of Zionism: A Secular Future by Arthur Hertzberg, which certainly accords very much with my own thinking, but I won’t go there. That would be the subject of a separate lecture, which he deserves, 'cause he really was a towering figure. But the proposition is that there were a number of different forms of Zionism. It wasn’t as if there was just one or that there is one. And if you want to just look at it, instead of seeing it as a completely unified ideology from very early on, Zionists were divided on the issue of whether or not Zionism meant merely Jewish renewal. Did it mean the creation of political state?

Advocates of Jewish renewal saw it as an educational, spiritual and psychological movement to help Jews become more aware of their cultural heritage, enable them to find pride and fulfilment as individuals, as an ethnic people. Spiritual Zionists felt that the Jewish psyche had been so damaged by years of oppression and living in ghettos that there had to be a concerted effort to regain dignity and self-respect. There were very different views, and I’m going to come back to them in a moment.

But the reality is that you can’t then just conflate Zionism with one particular position. And indeed, what is so interesting is that after the 1975 resolution was passed, the one to which I made considerable reference last week, Al Nassiri the advisor to the League of Arab Nations, wrote a letter to the New York Times in 1975, explaining some of the reasons for the resolutions he sought. And he asserted that many Asian and African countries supported the resolution that Zionism was a form of racism, 'cause they truly believed that exclusivity of Israel was related to a supremacist attitude towards the Palestinians. But then he said that it wasn’t an institutionalised feature of early Zionist ideology.

You had to then argue, “Well, those Zionist, the ones to which I’ve been referring to some extent, their attitudes contain the seeds of the discrimination towards Palestinians.” But indeed, even more significantly, and I want to come back to my last sentence, and I say today, he thought the resolution was regrettable, not because he said it was mistaken. That’s not my view. That’s his. But here’s the point: because it was counterproductive to the Israeli Palestinian dialogue. I want to come to that right at the end, as to how one is supposed to deal with these questions.

But the simple proposition that I’m making, and foundational to my argument is that you can’t, as it were, shoehorn all of Zionism into one particular view. There is a profound view within the Zionist tradition, the one certainly which I grew up, the one which emerged out of Ben-Gurion, and perhaps even more so from Martin Buber. But there was complexity there, that in fact Israel had to be a democratic and a Jewish state at the same time, and that it had to deal with these issues.

Now, David’s put on the board something which I want to refer you to, because it’s interesting to me what Buber had to say about this. Let me read this to you, and just for you I doubt. Buber himself was a towering philosophical figure who ended his days at the Hebrew University. And he said this: “"I’ve accepted as mine the state of Israel, the form of the new Jewish community that has arisen.” He told a friend. “But he who will truly serve the spirit must seek to free once again the blocked path to an understanding with the Arab peoples.” He understood for him that Zionism should not be at the expense of any other people. And then, reinforcing the position that I have spoken about earlier.

This is what he wrote in an exchange, I think, with Mahatma Gandhi, who had come out exactly on the opposite. “Our settlers did not come here as do the colonialists from the Occident, to have natives do their work for them. They themselves set their shoulders to the plough, and they spend their strength and their blood to make the land fruitful. But it’s not only for ourselves that we desire its fertility. The Jewish farmers have begun to teach their brothers, the Arab farmers, to cultivate the land more intensively. We desire to teach them further. Together with them, we want to cultivate the land, to serve it, as the Hebrew has it. The more fertile the soil becomes, the more space there’ll be for us and for them. We have no desire to dispossess them. We want to live with them. We do not want to dominate them. We want to serve with them.”

Buber’s idea of Israel was in a sense, I accept, a binational state, and that itself is an extremely controversial proposition. And as much as it is attractive intellectually, I can’t possibly see how that could be vindicated in its practicality. But that again is for another debate. But the point I’m making is that here was somebody who believed quite firmly in the idea of the state of Israel. He spent his last years in the state of Israel educating people, having an intellectual influence over them. And he viewed, which quite clearly there is exactly what I was trying to say earlier, with regard to the question of self-determination and what it actually meant and what it should mean.

And it’s important, it seems to me, that this lineage from Buber, albeit whatever you may say about his actual political programmatic, is a vitally important consideration in this issue. I want to put up the positive case. Want to say sorry. It’s not just simply, I can’t say to all of you just Antisemites, and therefore I’m going to walk away from the debate. I want to say to you that there are a serious set of intellectual resources that justify my argument of the fact that that 1975 resolution is outrageous. That it was motivated by Antisemitism, that it was motivated by singling out Jews, no doubt. But that’s not my final argument in relation to this particular issue for the reasons that I’m articulating. But it wasn’t only Martin Buber who recognised the difficulty. Have a look now at what Jabotinsky had to say in his 1923, The Iron War.

And I just want to read to you a couple of extracts from this, which was really fascinating. This is Zeev Jabotinsky by the way. “Emotionally, my attitude to the Arab is the same as to other nations. Polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arab from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine, which is good enough for me, provided that the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors programme, the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same state. Drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights. I’m prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights. We shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo.”

And then he continued. “As long as the Arabs feel that there’s the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they’re not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character, it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can then make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then when they drop their extremist leaders whose watchword is never. And the leadership will pass to the most moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as guarantee against Arab displacement, equal rights for Arab citizens, or Arab national integrity. And when that happens, I’m convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both people can live together in peace like good neighbours.”

Now, there’s no question that if you look at the second paragraph, he understood perfectly well that this was going to be enormously difficult, provided that the Arabs wanted to get rid of the Jews. And I’ve already indicated that certainly, right until 1973 and beyond, Israel faced not just dangerous threats, such as rockets going into cities, but an existential threat. One can well understand from where he was coming. Not that I am a Jabotinsky person, as I’ve indicated. I’m much more of the Buber and Ben-Gurion camp, but I cite this to you, to show that he did have a vision of where we should be going and the line of march that we should have and take.

He also clearly, because there was part of him which was clearly committed to a liberal programme, the first paragraph is not an unimportant one not to hold onto. So, there we are, in relation to Jabotinsky and the challenge has always been this. It has just been there from literally the beginning, about how we try to amalgamate these two fundamental principles of democracy in a Jewish state, in circumstances where I might add, it’s not easy to do, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned. I want to just say one other aspect, quoting the very interesting Palestinian thinker Sari Nusseibeh, who you may remember not only has written an extraordinary book about this particular issue, but in which he at one point in time did combine with Ayalon to try to develop a framework for peace.

And what he says, three or four years ago, he said the following. “The Arab world, the Muslim world seems to be falling apart. I grew up thinking there was something solid in the Arab world, except for the Palestinian situation. Now all these governments have failed. My generation grew up thinking that Muslims were tolerant. Now it’s scary, something totally different. A monster growing up all around you. Somehow, it is less dangerous for the Palestinians here. It’s safer for people here than in the Arab world, if you take Gaza away. Under occupation, your land and your resources are taken. There are no rights. But we generally don’t live in fear.”

And he goes on to suggest that fundamental now, because he doesn’t have much hope in a two state solution for range of reasons that we would have to debate on a different occasion. But critical therefore is the according of those who live in the land, Arabs, if you wish, to have equal civil rights and that they be meticulously complied with. And I think it’s important to realise both his acknowledgement of the difficulty, which effectively certainly confronted Jabotinsky in 1923, and to look beyond, lift one’s gaze, and say to what extent can one actually live in a society where those rights of equality, those citizens of that society are not accorded in a punctilious fashion.

Now that leads me, if I may, to my second proposition, and that is the second proposition is this question of social justice. Now, just amazingly, because it just happens that way, we read in the Shabbos that has just gone Pashatrukat. Pashatrukat has a number of very interesting aspects, which I would love to talk to about, which I can’t now. I will tell you one thing: that in Pashatrukat, there is this extraordinary exchange where Moshe Rabbeinu, Moses our teacher, instructs a group to go and talk to the king of Edom and to persuade him to give the people of Israel safe passage through his land on their route to the promised land.

I’m not going to go into the details of the negotiations, which are extremely interesting, and discussed at great length by Rashi and Rambam and Rashbam, the great commentators. But what comes out of this is that he refuses. And whilst Rambam points out in his commentary, Maimonides, that the king of Edom did not actually carry out any threat, which he had at one stage uttered, to cause harm the Jewish people. The fact is that the Torah a whole series of prohibitions against engagements with the people of Edom, including intermarriage.

The question that Rambam asks is why was this? What was so serious about this particular set of refusal to give us passage that resulted in these laws? And the answer is because ultimately, he had treated us with such extraordinary disrespect and disregard, because the human rights, which as Moshe Rabbeinu explains in the Pashatrukat, were taken away from us in Egypt, which why we left. But out of that particular passage of the Torah, we derive two fundamental principles of Gemilut Hasadim, and Hachnasat Orchim.

The notion of actually welcoming strangers, and showing them kindness and thoughtfulness. It seems to me that’s central. That’s central to the enterprise, they are vital. They’re vital for us, they’re vital for the kind of Zionism that I’m espousing. And if that is so, that is not a Zionism that in a sense would embrace and encompass the idea that we wouldn’t show punctilious respect for the rights of minorities within the state which we control. And it does seem to me that that is totally congruent with the Zionist ideas to which I’ve espoused, and which seems to me not entirely incongruent either with the views that Zeev Jabotinsky articulated back in 1923.

Let me then just conclude, because I’m sure there are questions and I’ve perhaps gone on slightly too long. I want to just make two final points. The first is I come back to where I started, with a point about this question of Antisemitism and the like. Undoubtedly it is true, and Bernard Lewis, if I may. Bernard Lewis has written extensively, precisely upon this point. The right to criticise, including criticising the government of Israel and effectively distinguishing between Antisemitism and a new Antisemitism, from free legitimate criticism.

Too often, he says, “Those who focus on injustices of Zionism do so at exclusion of other forms of racism, even if they’re non-Arabic Americans or Europeans who have no personal vested interest in seeing Palestinian rights as more important than rights of other groups of people. They also ignore the problems of Arab people that are not related to Zionism. Injustice perpetrated by Arab countries themselves.”

Going back to Nusseibeh. They also tend to portray Jews as rich and powerful, having great and negative influence in the world. And he points out, which is exactly what David suggested, that’s clouding the debate. It clouds the debate. And so, I wanted to end by saying two things. I do not think it very helpful to say, “Well, all the Palestinians are terrorists.”

Just as I think it’s totally, totally outrageous to suggest that everybody who believes in the self-determination of the Jewish people and the right of Israel to exist in a peaceful fashion central to Jewish existence equates to racism. I think it’s an unhelpful debate. Not only is it an awful debate. And the second point I want to make is that whilst, as I started off by saying I’m not prepared to accept that everyone who espouses a Zionist view is not a racist, just as I indicated earlier that I find it totally unacceptable when I’m told in South Africa that no Black person can be a racist.

I also want to insist that there is a serious pedigree of political, intellectual and historical thought, which I’ve thought albeit very, very truncated fashion, given the exigencies of time to articulate, which ultimately accepted fundamentally that Zionism was the establishment of self-determination of the Jewish people, but in circumstances whereby it would be both democratic and Jewish. I think that tradition still lives among many, and that is the tradition that I hold dear. And for that reason, I would argue by way of conclusion that I find it totally unacceptable and unbelievably hurtful to suggest that these views of mine really reflect a racist position. And I’ll leave it there.

David, I think with that, can we move to questions?

• [David] Yeah, thanks so much.

Q&A and Comments

• [Dennis] Okay, so here we go. I think some will be for you and some will be for me, doubtless. But let’s just start.

Colin says, “You are omitting the racist Jews like Noam Chomsky and the signatories of the Not In My Name adverts in the press. Surely, it’s the real problem.” No, it’s not the real problem. And whilst you can disagree with people like Chomsky, it’s exactly my point, Colin, that I don’t think it’s helpful just to say they’re racists. I think we’ve got a better argument than that, for goodness sake. And as the signatories of Not In My Name, well, my understanding of the ones who signed most recently was that they asserted the centrality of Israel to Jewish existence, but criticised the tactics of the government at the time. That is, whether you like it or not, part of democracy, I’m sorry to say.

Alan, “Unfortunately discourse amongst us,”-

• [David] Sorry, Dennis, if I can just add in-

• [Dennis] Please, sorry.

• I agree. I mean I think Chomsky and others, Naomi Klein, others, are brilliant intellectuals and I respect entirely. Exactly as you were saying at the end of your section there, Dennis before, which I agree with entirely, it’s the idea of equating Zionism with racism. It’s not dependent on a particular Israeli government’s policies at a particular time. That is the difference between criticism and demonization.

• [Dennis] I agree with that. I agree with that entirely.

Now Alan says, “Unfortunately, discourse amongst US left-leaning Democrats are cause for concern. Talking to a friend in the US’s first reaction. "I see Israel bombed Gaza last night.” This is total isolation without any reference perhaps the other side of the story.“ In other words, Israel’s guilty, regardless circumstances.” Yes, I think that’s exactly the point we’ve been making. But on the other hand, it’s important to keep an independent mind about each and every issue and not to suggest that anything that Israel does is always right, and anything anybody else does is wrong. But having said that, yes, I accept that there is. I don’t regard them as left-leaning. I regard these people as populists. Left-leaning should actually be a much more respectable and nuanced political philosophy. But there we are.

Dionne. “Dennis, I hope you’ll accept this question in the spirit of debate.” I always do, Dionne, so you don’t have to worry about that. “If my memory says me correctly, I suggested Israel.” That’s me. “Israel’s basic law on language where it’s even racist and apartheid. I accepted that the matter is contentious and balance of views, the arguments advanced by the other side.” I am certainly prepared to debate anything, Dionne. I certainly am. I made the point that I thought that the basic law, because it relegated Arabic, and because it said that self-determination was an exclusive Jewish right meant very problematic issues for 22% of the population in Israel proper. Now, you and I can debate these absolutely, and I don’t want do tonight. I only want to say to you, yes, with pleasure and if you want to email me, I’m very happy to exchange views with you and to hear your view, and you can tell me why I’m wrong.

Q: David, “Would you agree that over recent years, awareness and sensitivity of racism, both past and present, have heightened so dramatically across the spectrum of Western democracy has become necessary for all political and other groups to make commitments to eliminate racism where it exists, and prevent it from being established where it does not. Is there any reason why Israel and supporters of Zionism should be exceptions to the rule?” A: Well, for me your answer is no. For me, the answer is I want to. For almost 40 years of my life, I lived in the most racist society, and let me say it hasn’t been eliminated yet. So you don’t need to persuade me, David. I agree with you entirely. My whole point has not been to suggest that there aren’t some people who may espouse Zionism, who effectively aren’t prepared to be as committed to eliminating racism as maybe you and I are. So, I totally accept that. My point is that when you conflate the entire enterprise as being racist, that’s when I think you’ve totally gone over the line. Not you, I mean the argument. I do find that difficult. But the fact that we should be consistent with regard to racist practise is exactly, and that’s what I’m more than happy to debate with Dionne in relation to the earlier question.

Ethel. “It is one thing to try to understand the basic cause of Antisemitism, other than how to deal with them. My strong belief intellectualising won’t help. I do not believe Jews or Israelis themselves can successfully reduce it by explaining.” Come from the non-Jewish world, David, and perhaps this is a view, and then this is criticism of the Pope, who’s not spoken out sufficiently. Since you dealt with that issue, perhaps you want to answer.

• Ethel, read it here. “It’s one thing to understand about the causes, and to deal with them. I strongly believe that intellectualising the cause doesn’t help. Believe the Jews or Israelis themselves can successfully explain it away. Must come from the non-Jewish world. The purpose, but it’s silent.” Well, I would agree with you, Ethel. I think that would be obviously wonderful and very helpful, at least in opening, if you like, the gates of the debate.

But, if not now, when? And also, I don’t think one can rely on other groups to come to the help or the rescue or to propagate. Group X to propagate Group Y’s ideas necessarily. It may happen sometimes, but realpolitik maybe, and in history, it’s more about country’s interests rather than a question of ethic. The Pope. Well, I think Trudy’s dealt a lot with that, and the trajectory of the Pope. They were silent during the Second World War. I can’t see why there should be voices necessarily. There might be. I can’t see why there should be voices from the Vatican necessarily afterwards. The main point is one can’t rely on it.

• The next question’s for you as well, about Marlowe.

Q: Martine. “Do you think we are able to say that Marlowe and Shakespeare were Antisemitic in their airport portrayal of Jews, or they were merely representing the thoughts?” A: Fascinating question, Martine. I wish that anybody could see into the mind of two remarkable, brilliant, possibly amongst the best writers in English language, if not globally, Marlowe and Shakespeare. I love their works obviously, but it’s impossible to speculate their minds and it could well have been that they were fitting into the times.

Remember, Jews were still expelled from England and were not officially allowed to live there at all. There might have been a few Jews, here and there, but they were officially expelled. So, did they even meet any Jews, Marlowe or Shakespeare? We don’t know. Did they ever talk? We don’t know. So, we can’t know their minds, but we have a sense from the posters, perhaps the players, of the general zeitgeist. Certainly at the time, Jews were expelled.

• Abigail, yes, you’ve referred to Thomas Cahill, the book, The Gift to the Jews, How Tribe of Nomez Changed The World. The way everyone thinks and feels. It’s a very interesting book by the way, and you’re dead right, your point that the Jews gave us the outside and inside outlook and our inner life. We can hardly get up in the morning or cross the street without being Jewish. We dream dreams and hope Jewish hopes. Most of our best words, in fact, adventure, time, history, future, freedom, progress, spread, faith, hope, justice, are the gifts of Jews. It’s an interesting book. Certainly, a no question about that, but it’s a book rather worth reading. I agree with you. David. There’s a question-

• [David] I didn’t get, Dennis. It was also fascinating, in terms of the pre-Abrahamic world and post-Abrahamic world in terms of, as you say, in the Greek culture here. And we all know the split with the Hellenes later. A certain sector of the Jews in Jewish history wanted to follow the Hellenes and Greek culture more. So yes, fantastic and historically accurate. Thank you.

• There’s a question. Just an observation.

• [David] Yeah, that’s great. I know, if God did not exist, we would have to invent him. Brilliant. Thank you.

• [Dennis] Yeah, you’re right, Abigail, about the Torah portion of Balak. Fascinating question about he ends up blessing the Jews. I haven’t got time to go into a whole halachic discourse, but it’s an interesting observation. Thank you, Paul. Sandra. “The government of China, never Antisemitic, now is an ally of Iran, is now pushing the old trope.” Wow.

• [David] Yeah. Political self-interest take over on the geopolitical scale. Also, just a reminder that this debate happened in the mid '70s. Again, part of the Cold War, as a larger context of a geopolitical debate and reality, of the American West versus the Soviet. One just does need to be aware of that in terms of the vote. But nevertheless the trope, I think, still continues, which is codified if you like, I’m sure there’s a better word, in the protocols of the conspiracy to rule the world.

• [Dennis] Basil. Yeah. It’s such a profound question. Observation, sorry, not a question.

Q: “How does Zionism, which by definitions is Jewish nationalist movement avoid being racist, and how does it inoculate us from the charge of racism, and it contains the possibility of incubating racism as a reaction against Antisemitism?” A: That’s exactly what I’ve been grappling with, Basil. That’s exactly, I think, the whole proposition that I was trying to deal with, and what I suppose is particularly worrying to me is that we often essentially just throw these insults out at people that we don’t like, rather than actually interrogating their views.

So, your point is well made, and indeed, perhaps it’s a great summary of my part to this talk. Joe, yes. Chesler was a woman in the left.

Well, she didn’t entirely realise that the left was not her home, but she became critical of certain elements of the left. And yes, that’s right. There’s no question. Many Jews are experiencing that, and there are horrendous levels of Antisemitism now, which are being experienced by people without any view about Israel at all. Absolutely.

• [David] Can I just add. Sorry, Dennis. Just to add here that there were some images which I was going to show, but we didn’t have time of, as we all know, that on the extreme religious spectrum of Judaism, there’s a lot of images on the internet to show them rejecting the state of Israel and rejecting Zionism, and we know the religious reasons why. So, it can come from all different angles, from within, from without, et cetera.

• I’m not quite sure. Yeah.

• [David] “Got his anti Israeli Jews like to.”

• I really can’t make head of it.

• Just to say here, Rochelle, Stephen Fry-

• [Dennis] Oh. That’s the same thing. Yeah.

• Stephen Fry refused to sign the boycott and disinvestment. He was signed the opposite. He’s not part of this here. Miriam Margolyes, yes. Just to clarify. That letter.

• Leon, I think I did mention some books. The books I refer to is Phyllis Chesler’s book, the New Antisemitism, I also referred to two works by Arthur Hertzberg, the new version of The Zionist Idea, edited by Gil Troy, T-R-O-Y, and The Fate of Zionism: A Secular Future, which Arthur Hertzberg published shortly before his death. I think I’ve answered that. Leslie, Leviton, Isaacson.

Q: “What about the self-determination of the Palestinians?” A: That’s exactly the point I’ve been grappling with, Leslie. That’s exactly my difficulty. And not difficulty. I think that’s the challenge. And that was what I was trying to pose. I don’t have an answer to, but I think we have to face the question, and I was saying there’s a tradition, which is not just face the question, but sought to answer it in the best possible way.

• [David] Yeah, and it may be utopian, what Buber and Jabotinky have outlined there, but nevertheless, it’s worth striving for and fighting for.

• I mean, when Yonner and Alfred. I’m not going to say much. I’m not quite sure what you mean, but you have quoted something which really is a good book, which is Abi Shavit’s book, My Promised Land, and is well worth the read, if people haven’t read it. S-H-A-V-I-T. Well worth the read. He wrote The Iron Wall, Denise. That’s Jabotinky. My quote from Bernard Lewis. Oh goodness. I’ll have to find that again. I wrote it down in my usual haphazard fashion. I can’t, I’ll find it and I’ll give it. You’re very welcome to email me, and I’ll give it to you. 'Cause it’s quite an interesting book.

Yeah. Rachel, we are told to welcome the stranger.

Q: What about the strangers threaten us, when we allow them into Europe from North Africa? A: It’s the great problem of our time, immigration. But being Jewish has never been said to be easy. It’s the challenge we face, and who said that in fact, being Jewish was an easy issue? These are ethical challenges of our time. You may want to say that the Pasha is even too modern, as old as it is for us at the moment. But that’s the great debate, and maybe we should have a debate about that. Totally.

David, that’s star of David being imposed-

• [David] The Star of David image?

• [Dennis] Yeah.

• Yeah. It can and does inflame, as you’re saying, Marlene. I would just say that one needs to be aware of what is going on on the internet and elsewhere on social media and other places, globally today. I guess part of what Dennis and I are trying, and part of the whole idea of lockdown is to stimulate debate, discussion, critique, argue with us, debate with us, but to never hide or shy away from truth, and what we regard is truth, we’re debating notions of it, and bring it out into the open.

• Stephen, Buber, Magnus, Simon were always an appreciable minority in the Zionist programme. Because I would venture that their views didn’t provide one of the central missions of Zionism, the sanctuary state for world Jewry could only obtained by controlling their own political destiny. That’s far too sweeping a statement for me to agree with. I do accept that they understood that the question of control was one which had to be shared. I accept that.

Certainly, Magnus and Buber did, but I think they did influence in many ways a whole tradition, which understood exactly what you’re talking about, but sought to find a way to deal with reconciling the different rights, self-determination, of which I’ve spoken earlier. Which is why I still certainly think they’re wonderful to think about. And of course, you’re very welcome to disagree with them.

Marlene, “When Egypt occupied Gaza, there was no outcry.” Yes, of course you’re right. It’s also true about Jordan pre-1967. These are really important arguments. I accept that. Absolutely.

• [David] Also, let’s be aware, Jordan, the whole British empire ruled it, and gave Syria to the French, et cetera, et cetera. Jordan, all of that, I don’t want to go into the history of it now, but this is all the result of Empire, the British Empire. Like India and Bangladesh, Pakistan, et cetera. So, all these notions of partition, creations of state, et cetera, one needs to be aware of the historical context in terms of some of these thoughts, I think.

Q: Hank, “Can you acknowledge that all high-minded Jewish traditions and practises of acceptance, fairness, and humanity are not practised by so many of the Haredi cults?” A: Do not get me started on that, Hank. I’m entirely in agreement with you, but please understand that my teachers, my rabbinic teachers taught me a tradition that I still believe is worth defending, and which makes sense to my life, and essentially reconciles for me many of these very difficult questions that we’re talking about. These were modern orthodox rabbis, perhaps in many ways, they now themselves, their tradition is a minority.

But it’s one that I hold dear, and yes, I accept readily what you say. And it’s tragic that this incredible tradition essentially now has ultimately been replaced by a different form of culture. You can say, fine, you want to respect them, and that’s fine with me. It’s when they actually start suggesting that a kind of modern Orthodox form of Judaism is not Judaism at all. That’s when I start putting my foot down.

Devora, “I think that UN conference .” Yeah, the UN has not covered itself with glory, as we’ve indicated from the 1975 resolution. But one of the problems with the UN, of course, is who’s on the UN and how it works. And then of course, it’s a body that I certainly remember very distinctly myself being involved in some really interesting debates about how one would change the UN. What happened? What can happen? Well, Michael, I understand that you support the national law, and you say it’s important because of pressure on Israel to allow called so-called Palestinian refugees. I don’t think that’s the real reason it was put in, and having read the debates in the Knesset, I can only say I disagree with you entirely, but you’re entitled to your view.

Q: Iris, “Isn’t the continuing building of settlements in occupied a form of colonisation?” A: I do think there’s a problem with that, again, with the question of settlements, Iris. How am I supposed to stand between you and Michael? Is that the dilemma of my time? I don’t have an answer to that. Safe to say, I do think there’s a very big difference between Israel proper, if I could put it in the '67 borders, and some people wouldn’t regard that as Israel proper at all and what’s going on in the occupied territories, which is an entirely different proposition for me.

Unfortunately, I just don’t know what the solution is anymore. I really don’t. And I despair. Like Nusseibeh, that’s why I retreat to the idea of, “Let’s have this punctilious compliance with civil liberties, so that we do not have to stand any accusation of any form of racism. But you’re right, this is going to be the challenge, and I don’t think it’s going to go away. And it’s a debate we can have, but I’d rather not have it tonight. I’m quite sure on Father’s Day, it’s the last thing we want to do to disturb each other.

• [David] It is the profound question of our times. Absolutely. Iris.

• I seem to have dismissed the notion that Chomsky might be racist against Jews. I think this is from Lawrence. What about Tony Judd? Tony Judd’s one of my intellectual heroes, on all manner of issues. Now, he had views about Israel being a one state solution. And insofar as I’m concerned, I don’t think that’s possible. But I took him seriously, very seriously. I’m not going to criticise him, it’s his view. And I certainly don’t think that he was racist against Jews. Ronnie Keserel is an entirely different issue, but because we have laws against defamation, I’m not going to say more. Please. I do not want to be sued.

Rod, "The fight against Antisemitism has moved from the battlefield to the battle for the mind.” Well, yes. Antisemitism is a massive problem in the world today. We should not deny it, but I am going to consistently hold to my view that as awful as it is, and I find it astonishing, it’s like many years ago when I was called a racist on national television. I literally had to just get up, dust myself off and continue to hold the views that I have. But I am not going to suggest to you anyway that this has not moved into a very serious time in a populist period in world history, which is extremely dangerous.

And in fact, as I’ve tried to indicate earlier, whatever your view about Israel, Antisemitism is on the increase, not just on the left, I might add. Mr. Trump and his cronies, Mr. Trump defended all sorts of people who were utterly Antisemitic. It’s there on the left, it’s on the right, it’s all over. And it’s worrying in the extreme. Certainly it should be to all of us.

“Hertzog was was of course Hiam Hertzog, who became the president of the state of Israel, and whose son is now the president of the state of Israel, which gives me great joy.”

Q: Robin, “Is it not true that Arabs and Jews were both Semitic people before the diaspora?” A: There’s a tie. Well, that’s the great point. How do we actually develop a dialogue here? Not easy, not easy at all.

Thank you very much, Elizabeth.

Michael. Well, I’m not going to debate that.

Thank you very much, Debbie.

Lucy. I didn’t see the letter that Mr. Keserel and other signed supporting Corbyn and against Labour.

David might have. I can’t comment.

• [David] I think it’s going to get us into the whole thing. I would just say that it comes from both the left and the right, but that’s a whole thing to get into that letter. I don’t want to duck the question, Lucy, it’s important, but it would take quite a bit of time.

• [Dennis] Devora, “I think that Antisemitism is Jew hatred.” You’re quite right. Yaakov Hertzog. I was talking about Hiam in 1975, which I gave in the first lecture. Marlene, thank you very much. I think that’s it, David, unless there’s any comments from you-

• [David] Yeah, yeah. Thank you so much Dennis and Judi and Wendy and everybody for listening today and for Father’s Day. And Dennis, thanks as always for a wonderful collaboration.

• [Dennis] Likewise with you, David. On a very, very difficult topic.

• [David] Yeah-

• [Wendy] Thank you . That was truly excellent. And we could go on and on.

• [Dennis] We could.

• [David] Yeah, we could.

• To be perfectly honest with you, Wendy, I’m not sure I want to go on and on. It’s very hard.

• [David] Wendy, it’s Father’s Day. Give us a break.

• [Dennis] Mother go and have a Schnapps. I’m going to have a Schnapps.

• [Wendy] I don’t mean today.

• [Judi] Get the Schnapps, Dennis. Round and round the merry go round.

• [Dennis] Okay. Take care, everybody.

• [David] Thank you so much.

• Thanks so much. I always say to my kids, what you gain on the merry go-round, you lose on the swings, and vice versa. So on that happy note, happy Father’s Day to everybody. And thank you everybody. Take care. Happy Sunday.

• [David] Bye.

• [Dennis] Take care everyone.

• Ciao.