Anti-Semitism Rising – Why?

ANTI-SEMITISM RISING – WHY? was recorded by PressTV for transmission as two programmes, each having two parts. (When recording there’s a studio break for live news between each part).

Due to what was described as “human error” at PressTV HQ in Tehran (they’ve got a lot on their minds!), only the first half of the first of the two programmes was initially transmitted (what you see below is that part, which somehow found its way to YouTube.). The complete package is being rescheduled and when I am notified of transmission dates and times, I will let you know through a new post and through my Twitter feed etc.

The first part gives a hint of why I’ve come to the conclusion that informed and honest debate with Zionism is impossible.

5 comments on this post.
  1. John Spritzler:

    Harvard University refused to sponsor a symposium on the central question at the root of the Middle East conflict: “Should there be a Jewish state in Palestine?” Not one of its Schools or Centers would do it, when asked. See the replies from its various deans and Center directors to my emails asking them to sponsor such a symposium, at .

    By the way, when the Zionists say that Palestinians left their homes and villages voluntarily and therefore forfeited their right to return, I think it is important not only to debunk that myth, but also to point out that this Zionist argument, itself, demonstrates the racism of Zionism because they would never apply the same logic to non-Palestinians; they would, for example, never say that an American traveling voluntarily to Europe on vacation forfeits his right to return; they would never say that the 50% of Jews in Tel Aviv who fled the city (against the command of the Israeli government, no less) in fear of Saddam Hussein’s SCUDS forfeited their right to return. But Palestinians who leave voluntarily forfeit that right according to the racist logic of Zionism. Hang the Zionists with their own petard.

  2. admin:


    I think we’re on the same page as we say on my side of the pond.

    In the discussion and debate, as in his book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Ilan Pappe debunks the Zionist myth (nonsense) that the Palestinians left their homes and villages voluntarily. Now here’s a question for you.

    It’s not only the Gentiles among whom most Jews live (in North America and Europe) who have been conditioned to believe Zionism’s lies of history. Almost all Jews have also been conditioned, brainwashed. The question is – Do Jews (I mean more than a small minority of them) want to know the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of conflict and over Palestine that became Israel?

    I’m coming to the conclusion that most Jews don’t want to know because the truth is too uncomfortable for them. I’d like to be wrong. Am I?

    Perhaps I should add that I am fully aware that a small and growing (but still small) number of Jews everywhere, even in America, are openly in opposition to the Zionist state’s policies; but even most of these “progressive” Jews have red lines they will not cross. They campaign for a genuine and viable two-state solution, even a complete end to the occupation that started in the aftermarth of the 1967 war (which actually was a war of Israeli aggression, not self-defense), but most of them are, apparently, unwilling to come to grips with the fact that Israel was created, mainly, by Zionist terrorism and ethnic cleansing. THE point, or so it seems to me, is that Jewish recognition of the wrong done to the Palestinians in Zionism’s name is the absolute pre-requisite for a real peace process. Nazi holocaust denial is an obscenity but so, too, is Nakba denial.

  3. John Spritzler:

    Hi Alan,

    Yes, we are on the same page.

    In answer to your question, “Do Jews (I mean more than a small minority of them) want to know the truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of conflict and over Palestine that became Israel?” my personal experience, for what it is worth, is that some do and many do not. Most Gentiles, however, do want to know. The reason many Jews do not want to learn the truth is, I believe, because they know enough to realize that if they knew the truth they would be forced to choose between the truth, on one hand, and virtually all of their leaders, on the other hand –an unpleasant dilemma for most people. I discuss this somewhat at .

    The fact that Zionist leaders are the enemy of Jews is extremely important, not only for Jews to learn, but for Gentiles to learn as well; Gentiles, to their credit, do not want to act contrary to Jews whom they view as victims of historical anti-Semitism, so until they understand that Zionist leaders are enemies of the Jews they will be reluctant to oppose Zionism.

    Zionist leaders are the enemy of Jews on several counts. As you, I believe, emphasize, Zionist oppression of non-Jews (ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in particular) in the name of Jews foments anger at Jews, which only strengthens anti-Semitism. Also, as I have written about at , Zionist leaders betrayed European Jews during the Holocaust, even opposing rescue efforts. Lastly, Zionist leaders use Arab/Muslim anger at Israel’s ethnic cleansing to make working class Jews in Israel so fearful of Arabs/Muslims that they will look to Zionist leaders in Israel to protect them, and thereby allow these same Zionist leaders and the billionaires behind them to drive them down economically, as I discuss at .

    You are right that many Jews will oppose the occupation but not support the right of return of the Palestinian refugees, which is the key grievance that needs to be addressed in order to have a just solution to the conflict. The group I work with (Somerville Divestment Project — ) makes right of return and equality between Jews and non-Jews the central points. In Cambridge and Somerville, our ballot question received 73% and 62%, respectively, of the vote, showing enormous support by Americans for equality between Jews and non-Jews inside Israel–in direct contradiction to the Zionist principle of inequality. Framing the conflict as one between those for and those against equality (instead of those for the Jews versus those for the Palestinians) is a powerful way to fight Zionism. See more on this at .

    The fight against Zionism is fundamentally a fight against oppression, not only oppression of Palestinians but oppression of OURSELVES. On this note, please see .


  4. Konflikt « Snaphanen:

    [...] Hoffman of the Zionist Federation UK, with whom I appeared on the terrifying hate-Israel fest on Press TV in London on June 12, describes Ingrams as [...]

  5. Zan Tarr:

    it seems obvious to those uf us who share more progressive views on the matter,…but i think its important to make a clear statement that Zionism as we use the term isnt to be confused with political Israel’s existential rights.

    its confusing because the history of Israel as we know it includes the profligation of racist, xenophobic colonial mindsets and policies. in fact, theres a question of whether religious judaic self-identiy as a chosen people is an inward facet or projection of an external psychology of racism toward or judgement of other groups (this is a theorized origin of many religions, but it seems especially cogent in a religion so indelibly linked to ethnicity and ‘race.’) And theres no doubt the state of Israel wouldnt exist but for its imperialist stance…but the two–its tactics and its existence–are distinct, at least as a practical matter in modern discussions of the conflict.

    The hardliners conflate the politcal entity of Israel with Zionism (which means many different things to different folks) and feel existentially threatened when fielding critiques of Zionist history.

    its no wonder Gould is also concerned with “anti-Americanism.” Conservative and/or racist American commentators are just as quick to label any questions about America’s many human rights crimes as revisionist and un-American. They respond “America has provided x, y and z economic and cultural freedoms to the world…how can you question it….how can you imagine a world without America…”. and then they push for aggressive military expenditures to safeguard democracy around the world. But really ‘spreading democracy’ is just a euphamism for safeguarding ones own sense of identity and all the personal interests that butress it. its just putting up fences to protect onesself…out of fear. fear of losing identity. Ones view of onesself is so ensnared in identity props–religion, nationhood, clan, family, langusge–that logic dies first and last (in between its revived as a practical matter to engage the world.)

    so i agree a real POLITICAL debate with hardliners is really impossible in the end…although forwarding the aformentioned existence/politics distinction might help.

    hardliners dont need historical clarity…they need psychoanalysis.

Leave a comment