ANTI-SEMITISM RISING. WHY? Transmission Details

The following are the global details of PressTV’s first full transmission of the heated debate I recorded in London on 12 June.

Dates and Times

  • 20/09/2009 19:02
  • 21/09/2009 02.02
  • 21/09/2009 14.02

Online Streams

Frequencies

ArabSat 2B (30.5E)

12628.53

3000

3/4

V

Eurobird 1 (2805.E)

12691

27500

2/3

V

Badr 4 (26E)

12054

27500

3/4

V

Galaxy 19 (97W)

12053

22000

3/4

V

Optus D2 (152E)

12706

22500

3/4

V

AsiaSat 2 (100.5E)

3660

27500

3/4

V

Hot Bird 8 (13E)

12437

27500

3/4

H

AsiaSat 3S (105.5E)

12352

30000

3/4

V

HispaSat 1C (30W)

12172

27500

3/4

H

Intelsat 902(62E)

11555

27500

3/4

V

IntelSat 10 (pas10)(68.5E)

12562

26657

1/2

H

Nile sat

10719

27500

3/4

V

SES ASTRA(19/2E)

12460.50

27500

3/4

H

As I wrote in a post on 4 August, the experience of chairing this panel discussion and debate led me to the conclusion that informed and honest debate with Zionism is impossible. Viewers now have the opportunity to see and hear why I came to this conclusion and to say whether I’m right or wrong.

(In principle there’s a case for saying that I should not have put Jonathan Hoffman on notice that I would have him removed from the panel if he continued to try to dominate the proceedings with his propaganda; but if I had not been firm with him, he would have effectively hi-jacked the program).

2 comments on this post.
  1. Martina Tamburrino:

    Dear Mr. Alan Hart,

    I hugely applaud your powerful program on Anti-Semitism Rising! – The very best debate I have watched for a long, long time. It was lively and refreshing and competent, and despite the fears of some participants, I’m confident it DID shed more light on the issue. Just as it cast more shadows, as it should, on Israel’s and the Zionists’ ruthless agenda.

    I thoroughly enjoyed the discussion – well, to be precise, the part of the discussion offered by the NON-Zionist participants, both in the panel and the public. Their words, and yours, were effective and to the point and showed moral courage. And you can be reassured, both your own personal efforts and your guests’ engagement were not in vain.

    It was good, for a change, to listen to all those wonderful men and women of Jewish faith, from both secular and clerical backgrounds, speaking-up passionately for the rights of the Palestinian People. They showed courage and determination and honesty and belief in things that really matter. They raised our hopes that one day – maybe not too far away – Arabs and Jews might share the same Land in equality.

    Yes, I am afraid Prof. Pappe is right when he predicts that the conflict in Palestine will play itself out by means of generational factors – as also some signs coming from the J-Street association seem to suggest; and that sadly much blood will yet to be shed before that can happen. The deplorable farce we have witnessed last week at the UN assembly and the Pittsburgh summit leave little margin for optimistic speculations about any meaningful change coming from that direction.

    No personal offence meant to your Zionist guests who had come to advocate Israel’s legitimacy, but I found their contributions rather meaningless, if not utterly counter-productive. Prof. Pappe was very brilliant in the way he exposed their rhetoric for what it really was: the attempt at making an unsustainable case, completely devoid of sound foundations and lacking any moral ground. And Dr Hajo Meyer is a real hero, given the staunch fight he still puts up at his venerable age, against the vicious practice of demonizing and de-humanizing a social group so that crimes against it can be met with impunity.

    I always wonder, and cannot make-up my mind, whether Zionists really DO believe the lies of their own propaganda, which would imply they are blind and insensitive to other peoples’ sufferings – or whether they simply want to have their cake and eat it too, which would imply they are indeed aware of the pain they cause to others, yet feel entitled to impunity on account of the wrongs suffered in the past by their Jewish ancestors, in which Palestinians or Arabs had no part whatsoever.

    With that quizzical doubt in my mind, I set out in all earnest to listen with good will to any sound explanation Israel’s supporters in the panel might be able to offer.

    No comfort came from Ms Gould when she delivered her “lovely-pizza-in-lovely-restaurants” speech, which I personally found appalling as a way of describing the very serious situation Palestinians face in Jerusalem. Or when she delivered her anachronistic “Juden-rein” allegations, implying that Jewish ethnic cleansing is still going on in some parts of the world – should that be true, and I give her the benefit of the doubt, I wonder why we never hear about it, as Zionists make it a point never to miss-out any opportunity, real or false, to accuse the world of Jewish discrimination. And anyway that would in no way mitigate Israel’s serious accountability in the ethnic cleansing crimes it is committing against the Palestinian People. It was interesting, though, that Mrs. Gould inadvertently admitted to injustices being indeed suffered by Palestinians, when she said that in the past 60 years so many “other wrongs” had been inflicted on “other populations” around the world. (By the way, did I really hear her mentioning Sudan as a place where injustices are committed? If so, what about Israel’s role in that part of the world?)

    Neither did any comfort come from Mr. Hoffman’s side with his sterile and rather pointless remarks. If such hollow propaganda represents a standard for the arguments the Zionist Federation can come up with, it should come as no surprise that so many institutions have declined your invitation. No well-founded arguments were offered, no good excuses were provided that would effectively stand-up against the serious accusations moved against Israel’s crimes – the reason being, that there ARE no excuses for what goes on in Palestine. As the very passionate Ms Selma James put it, “it’s occupation and it’s imperialism”. And we will not be fooled into thinking it might be anything else – which I suspect was the reason why some prominent people decided against a public appearance in your program: they feared they could face, or at least witness, a showdown in which Israel’s supporters’ undefendable position would be exposed. As far as I am concerned, that is exactly what happened.

    Dear Mr. Alan Hart, though you have made it clear in your article on “Informed and Honest Debate with Zionism…” how many difficulties are involved in airing a show on such a controversial issue, I still hope there will be a way for this debate to go on, as it should, relentlessly, until deceitful propaganda will find no more room for spreading.

    Thank you so much for your commitment.

    Martina Tamburrino

  2. Peter:

    Sir, I saw a debate in which Hajo Meyer and Illan Pappe participated, chaired by yourself and if I remember well taped on 27 of sept.

    This type of debate is very useful and without it the zionist version of the history of Israel will never even be dented.

    My view is close to what one of the participants in the audience said: we need a regime change in Israel. I think it is important to add we also need a population change.The immigrants that flocked this illegal state, built on stolen land, should be peacefully helped to return to where they came from or to where their parents came from. The land is called Palestine, and the occupation that is called Israel should be ended.We should stop including the state of Israel in the solution of this sad story of occupation, this racially based conquest.

    The west is responsible for this crime, and should pay for ending it by offering the returnees from occupied Palestine a home and money.

    Kindly

    pc

Leave a comment