• home
• about
• new
• essays
• AI
• book

Frank Visser, graduated as a psychologist of culture and religion, founded IntegralWorld in 1997. He worked as production manager for various publishing houses and as service manager for various internet companies and lives in Amsterdam. Books: Ken Wilber: Thought as Passion (SUNY, 2003), and The Corona Conspiracy: Combatting Disinformation about the Coronavirus (Kindle, 2020).

Does anti-Zionism equal antisemitism?

A Fictitious Debate between Douglas Murray and Gideon Levy

Frank Visser / ChatGPT-4o

Me to ChatGPT:

• Stage a debate between Douglas Murray and Gideon Levy about "anti-Zionism is antisemitism."[1]
• Israel stands virtually alone in the UN as the country against which many resolutions have been passed (and were ignored). Does that make the UN antisemitic?
• Both parties in this conflict reject the right of the other country to exist. How do we get out of this dead end?
• Many negotiations in the past have failed to live up to their promise, why would it work this time?
• Where do these two warring parties find common ground?
• Both parties have rather extremist governments. How can progress towards peace be made under these circumstances?
• In what sense is this basically a conflict between the West (US, EU) and islam (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah)?
• Isn't it true that the Palestinians are their own biggest enemies, with two parties hating eachother?
• Last question for both: which political solution to this conflict do you propose?

ChatGPT:

Stage a debate between Douglas Murray and Gideon Levy about "anti-Zionism is antisemitism."

Moderator: Good evening, everyone. Tonight, we have a compelling debate between two prominent figures: Douglas Murray, a British conservative author and political commentator, and Gideon Levy, an Israeli journalist and columnist for Haaretz. The topic of our debate is, "Anti-Zionism is Antisemitism." Let's begin with opening statements. Mr. Murray, you have the floor.

Douglas Murray: Thank you. Anti-Zionism is often used as a guise for antisemitism. Zionism, at its core, is the belief in the right of the Jewish people to self-determination in their historic homeland. To deny this right uniquely to Jews, while supporting self-determination for other peoples, reveals a double standard that is inherently discriminatory. Furthermore, much of the rhetoric used by anti-Zionists employs antisemitic tropes, such as global Jewish conspiracies or excessive Jewish influence, which mirror classic antisemitic accusations. Thus, anti-Zionism frequently overlaps with and fuels antisemitism.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Murray. Mr. Levy, your opening statement.

Gideon Levy: Thank you. Anti-Zionism is not inherently antisemitic. Criticizing the political ideology of Zionism and the policies of the Israeli government is not the same as hating Jews. Many Jews themselves are anti-Zionist or critical of Zionism for various reasons, including ethical, religious, or political grounds. Conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism stifles legitimate criticism and debate about Israel's actions, particularly regarding the occupation and treatment of Palestinians. It's crucial to distinguish between genuine antisemitism, which is bigotry against Jews, and opposition to a political ideology or state policy.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Levy. Let's dive deeper into this discussion. Mr. Murray, how do you respond to the argument that conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism silences legitimate criticism of Israeli policies?

Douglas Murray: Legitimate criticism of Israeli policies is, of course, not antisemitic. However, when criticism of Israel crosses the line into delegitimization of the state's right to exist or employs antisemitic stereotypes, it becomes problematic. The issue arises when anti-Zionism rejects the Jewish people's right to a homeland, something not demanded of any other nation's state. This double standard indicates a deeper bias. Criticism is valid, but denying the very existence of Israel or holding it to different standards than other countries often reveals an underlying prejudice.

Gideon Levy: The problem is that this definition is too often used to shield Israel from accountability. Many people, including Jews, critique Zionism because they believe it perpetuates injustice against Palestinians. This does not equate to denying Jews' right to exist or be safe. It's a political stance against a specific form of nationalism. We must be able to discuss and critique state actions and ideologies without being labeled as bigots. Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism risks undermining real efforts to combat genuine antisemitism by conflating it with political criticism.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, how do you address the concern that anti-Zionist movements often attract and include individuals or groups with clearly antisemitic views?

Gideon Levy: It is true that some individuals with antisemitic views may join anti-Zionist movements. However, this should not discredit the entire movement or label all its supporters as antisemitic. We must judge individuals by their actions and statements, not by the fringe elements that may attach themselves to broader movements. Anti-Zionists must be vigilant in rejecting antisemitism within their ranks, just as any movement must guard against extremists. But the presence of antisemitic individuals does not inherently make anti-Zionism antisemitic.

Douglas Murray: While it is crucial to differentiate between legitimate criticism and bigotry, we cannot ignore the reality that anti-Zionist rhetoric often mirrors classic antisemitic tropes. The overlap is significant enough that we must question the motivations behind some anti-Zionist stances. The persistent singling out of Israel for criticism, the use of language that dehumanizes Israelis, and the denial of Jewish self-determination all contribute to a hostile environment for Jews. Therefore, dismissing the connection between anti-Zionism and antisemitism is both naïve and dangerous.

Moderator: Let's discuss the impact of this debate on Jewish communities worldwide. Mr. Murray, how does equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism affect Jewish communities, particularly those critical of Israeli policies?

Douglas Murray: Equating anti-Zionism with antisemitism provides a necessary defense for Jewish communities worldwide against a form of disguised antisemitism. However, it is essential to distinguish between valid criticism and genuine bigotry. For Jews who are critical of Israeli policies, the key is to ensure that their criticisms are constructive and do not undermine Israel's right to exist or echo antisemitic rhetoric. This balance protects against antisemitism while allowing for necessary debate and critique.

Gideon Levy: This equation can be harmful to Jewish communities, especially those critical of Israeli policies. It alienates Jews who oppose certain aspects of Zionism and pressures them to conform to a particular political stance. This conflation also stifles necessary and healthy debates within Jewish communities about Israel's direction and policies. By labeling all anti-Zionism as antisemitism, we risk marginalizing significant voices within the Jewish world and beyond who seek justice and peace through different perspectives.

Moderator: Thank you both for your insights. In conclusion, it is evident that the debate over whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism is complex and deeply nuanced. It touches on issues of identity, politics, and the fine line between legitimate criticism and bigotry. I appreciate your thoughtful contributions to this important discussion.

Israel stands virtually alone in the UN as the country against which many resolutions have been passed (and were ignored). Does that make the UN antisemitic?

Douglas Murray: The UN's disproportionate focus on Israel certainly raises concerns. When you compare the number of resolutions passed against Israel to those passed against countries with far worse human rights records, the disparity is stark. This suggests a bias that often goes beyond legitimate criticism and veers into an obsessive focus on Israel. While not every resolution or critique of Israel is antisemitic, the sheer volume and intensity of these actions, often ignoring more egregious abuses elsewhere, can be seen as indicative of an underlying prejudice. This bias, whether conscious or not, can contribute to an environment that fosters antisemitism.

Gideon Levy: The high number of resolutions against Israel does not necessarily indicate antisemitism within the UN. Instead, it reflects the significant international concern over Israel's policies, particularly regarding the Palestinian territories. Many of these resolutions address specific issues such as settlements, military operations, and human rights violations. It's crucial to differentiate between legitimate international scrutiny and genuine antisemitism. Criticizing a state's actions, especially when those actions have significant humanitarian implications, is a fundamental aspect of international governance and accountability. Labeling such criticism as antisemitism can be a way to deflect from addressing these serious issues.

Moderator: Thank you for your responses. Mr. Murray, how do you reconcile the need for Israel to be held accountable with your concerns about UN bias?

Douglas Murray: Accountability is essential, but it must be fair and proportionate. The UN's focus on Israel often lacks balance, with far fewer resolutions targeting countries with severe human rights abuses. This disproportionate scrutiny not only undermines the credibility of the UN but also suggests a bias that can contribute to antisemitic sentiments. Holding Israel accountable is important, but it should be done in a way that is consistent with how other nations are treated. The current disparity does not achieve this balance.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, how would you address concerns that the UN's actions might contribute to antisemitism?

Gideon Levy: It's vital to ensure that criticism of Israel is framed in a way that avoids perpetuating antisemitic stereotypes. The focus should be on specific policies and actions rather than on Israel or Jews as a whole. The international community must be careful to distinguish between criticism of the Israeli government and antisemitism. At the same time, it's important for Israel and its supporters to recognize and address legitimate concerns raised by the international community. This approach fosters a more nuanced and productive dialogue, which is necessary for both combating antisemitism and promoting human rights.

Both parties in this conflict reject the right of the other country to exist. How do we get out of this dead end?

Douglas Murray: The situation is indeed complex, but I believe the first step is for both parties to acknowledge each other's right to exist and live in peace. This requires a fundamental shift in rhetoric and education on both sides. Israel has repeatedly expressed a willingness to coexist and has made several peace offers over the years. The international community must encourage Palestinian leaders to also recognize Israel's right to exist unequivocally. Efforts should focus on fostering dialogue, building trust, and promoting mutual understanding. This includes addressing legitimate security concerns of Israel and the aspirations of Palestinians for statehood and self-determination.

Gideon Levy: Acknowledging each other's right to exist is indeed critical, but we must also address the power asymmetry and historical injustices that fuel this conflict. Israel, as the stronger party, must take significant steps to end the occupation and ensure Palestinian rights. This means dismantling settlements, ending the blockade of Gaza, and halting military operations that disproportionately affect civilians. The international community, particularly influential countries like the United States, must pressure Israel to take these actions. For Palestinians, internal unity and a commitment to non-violent resistance are essential. Ultimately, both sides need to engage in genuine negotiations, facilitated by impartial mediators, to reach a just and lasting solution.

Moderator: Mr. Murray, what specific steps can Israel take to build trust and move towards a peaceful resolution?

Douglas Murray: Israel can take several steps to build trust, such as improving living conditions for Palestinians by easing restrictions on movement and access, supporting economic development, and engaging in confidence-building measures. Additionally, freezing settlement expansion and showing a genuine commitment to a two-state solution can signal Israel's willingness to negotiate in good faith. Israel should also work with international partners to ensure that any peace process includes security guarantees to protect its citizens from terrorism and violence.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, how can Palestinian leadership contribute to building trust and advancing towards peace?

Gideon Levy: Palestinian leadership can build trust by unequivocally renouncing violence and demonstrating a commitment to peaceful negotiations. This includes working towards unity between different Palestinian factions and presenting a coherent, unified stance in negotiations. Promoting human rights, democratic governance, and accountability within Palestinian territories will also strengthen their position. Additionally, Palestinian leaders must actively engage in dialogue with Israeli counterparts and the international community to seek diplomatic solutions and foster mutual understanding.

Moderator: Considering the current state of mutual distrust, what role should the international community play in facilitating a resolution to this conflict?

Douglas Murray: The international community should play a balanced and supportive role, providing a platform for negotiations while ensuring that both sides adhere to their commitments. This involves not only pressuring Israel to make concessions but also holding Palestinian leaders accountable for incitement and violence. Countries and international organizations should offer incentives for peace, such as economic aid and security guarantees, and facilitate people-to-people initiatives to build grassroots support for coexistence.

Gideon Levy: The international community, particularly powerful countries like the United States and members of the European Union, must take a more assertive stance in advocating for a fair and just resolution. This means applying pressure on Israel to end the occupation and comply with international law, while also supporting Palestinian efforts towards statehood and self-determination. Additionally, international actors should promote dialogue, protect human rights, and provide economic and humanitarian assistance to alleviate the suffering of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Many negotiations in the past have failed to live up to their promise, why would it work this time?

Douglas Murray: Past negotiations have indeed faced significant challenges, often due to a lack of trust, unrealistic expectations, and external pressures. For negotiations to work this time, there must be a genuine commitment from both parties to reach a compromise and a change in approach. This includes learning from past failures, such as the need for robust enforcement mechanisms, guarantees of security for both Israelis and Palestinians, and a phased approach that allows for gradual confidence-building. Moreover, a successful negotiation process requires strong international support and mediation, possibly involving a more balanced and inclusive group of stakeholders who can hold both sides accountable and provide incentives for progress.

Gideon Levy: For negotiations to succeed this time, there must be a fundamental shift in addressing the core issues of the conflict: the occupation, the right of return for Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem. Previous negotiations often failed because they didn't adequately address these deeply rooted problems. Additionally, there needs to be a genuine political will from both Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, backed by public support. The international community must also play a more active and impartial role, ensuring that negotiations are based on international law and human rights. Importantly, grassroots movements on both sides advocating for peace and justice can exert pressure on leaders to pursue a genuine and sustainable resolution.

Moderator: Mr. Murray, what lessons from past negotiations should be applied to improve the chances of success this time?

Douglas Murray: One critical lesson is the importance of incremental trust-building measures before tackling the most contentious issues. This could include economic cooperation, easing restrictions, and joint security initiatives. Another lesson is the need for clear and realistic goals, avoiding overly ambitious or ambiguous agreements that are difficult to implement. Ensuring broad-based support within both Israeli and Palestinian societies is also crucial, as is the involvement of regional players who can provide additional guarantees and support. Finally, maintaining sustained international engagement and pressure can help keep both parties committed to the process.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, how can new negotiations address the fundamental issues that previous talks have overlooked or inadequately addressed?

Gideon Levy: New negotiations must start by recognizing and addressing the power imbalance and historical grievances. This means prioritizing an end to the occupation and ensuring the rights and dignity of Palestinians are at the forefront of the talks. A comprehensive approach is needed, one that includes addressing the right of return in a way that acknowledges the suffering of refugees while seeking practical solutions. The status of Jerusalem should be negotiated with sensitivity to its significance to both peoples. Moreover, involving a wider array of voices, including civil society and grassroots organizations, can ensure that the negotiations reflect the aspirations of those most affected by the conflict.

Moderator: Both of you have highlighted the need for international involvement. How should the international community adjust its role to support a successful negotiation process this time?

Douglas Murray: The international community should adopt a more balanced and nuanced approach, avoiding favoritism and ensuring that both sides feel their concerns are being addressed. This involves applying consistent pressure on both parties to comply with international norms and agreements. The international community can also provide technical and financial support for initiatives that promote cooperation and development. It is essential to involve regional actors who have a vested interest in peace and stability in the Middle East. Finally, fostering people-to-people initiatives and supporting civil society can help build the grassroots support necessary for any agreement to be sustainable.

Gideon Levy: The international community must ensure that any negotiations are rooted in international law and human rights, holding both sides accountable for violations. It should support efforts to end the occupation and promote Palestinian statehood alongside security for Israel. International actors should also facilitate dialogue and reconciliation processes, providing platforms for marginalized voices, including refugees, women, and youth. Economic and humanitarian support should be directed towards initiatives that foster cooperation and improve living conditions for both Israelis and Palestinians. By being more impartial and proactive, the international community can help create the conditions for a lasting peace.

Moderator: Thank you both for your insights. The path to successful negotiations is undoubtedly challenging, but with a genuine commitment from all parties involved and robust international support, there is hope for a resolution that addresses the core issues and paves the way for a sustainable and just peace.

Where do these two warring parties find common ground?

Douglas Murray: Despite the deep divisions and hostilities, there are areas where Israelis and Palestinians can find common ground. One fundamental shared interest is the desire for peace and security. Both populations have endured significant suffering and loss, and many on both sides long for an end to the violence and instability. There is also a shared interest in economic development and prosperity. Cooperation in areas such as trade, technology, and infrastructure can provide tangible benefits and build mutual dependencies that foster peace. Environmental issues, such as water resources and climate change, also offer opportunities for collaboration. By focusing on these practical and immediate needs, both sides can build a foundation of trust and cooperation.

Gideon Levy: Common ground can indeed be found in the universal human desire for dignity, freedom, and a better future for the next generations. Many Palestinians and Israelis want to live normal lives, free from fear and oppression. There is potential for solidarity in the recognition of each other's humanity and suffering. Cultural exchanges, joint educational programs, and grassroots initiatives can help bridge the divide by fostering mutual understanding and respect. Both sides also share an interest in international legitimacy and support. By working together towards a fair and just solution, they can gain broader international acceptance and support, which is crucial for long-term peace and stability.

Moderator: Mr. Murray, can you elaborate on specific economic or environmental projects that could serve as common ground for cooperation?

Douglas Murray: Absolutely. Joint economic zones and industrial parks where Israelis and Palestinians can work side by side are one example. These projects can create jobs and stimulate local economies. Another area is technology and innovation. Israel has a robust tech sector, and collaborative tech incubators could help foster Palestinian entrepreneurship and innovation. Environmental projects are also critical, especially regarding water management and renewable energy. Both regions face water scarcity, and joint initiatives to manage and share water resources can benefit both populations. Renewable energy projects, such as solar farms, can also provide sustainable energy solutions and reduce dependence on external energy sources.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, what cultural or grassroots initiatives have shown promise in building common ground, and how can they be expanded?

Gideon Levy: Several grassroots initiatives have shown promise, such as the joint Israeli-Palestinian youth programs that bring young people together to break down stereotypes and build friendships. Organizations like Seeds of Peace and Combatants for Peace have facilitated dialogue and cooperation. Expanding these programs and ensuring they reach more communities can have a profound impact. Cultural exchanges, such as art exhibits, music festivals, and joint educational curricula that teach about both histories and narratives, can also foster mutual understanding. Additionally, supporting civil society organizations that advocate for peace and human rights on both sides can amplify voices that seek reconciliation and justice.

Moderator: What role can regional players and the international community play in supporting these common ground initiatives?

Douglas Murray: Regional players and the international community can provide crucial support by funding and facilitating these initiatives. They can offer technical expertise and resources for economic and environmental projects and create platforms for dialogue and collaboration. International organizations and foreign governments can also apply diplomatic pressure to ensure both parties support and participate in these initiatives. By highlighting and promoting successful examples of cooperation, the international community can inspire further efforts and demonstrate the tangible benefits of peace.

Gideon Levy: The international community can play a vital role by offering financial and logistical support to grassroots and cultural initiatives. They can help create safe spaces for dialogue and provide training in conflict resolution and peacebuilding. International actors should also work to amplify the voices of those promoting peace and human rights and hold accountable those who obstruct these efforts. Regional players, particularly neighboring Arab countries, can also help by normalizing relations with both Israel and Palestine, providing a model of cooperation, and supporting regional integration efforts that include both parties.

Both parties have rather extremist governments. How can progress towards peace be made under these circumstances?

Douglas Murray: It is indeed challenging to make progress towards peace when both sides are governed by more extreme elements. However, history has shown that even hardline leaders can be brought to the negotiating table under the right circumstances. One way to make progress is through sustained international pressure and incentives. The international community can use diplomatic, economic, and political tools to encourage moderation and compromise. Additionally, supporting moderate voices within both societies is crucial. Civil society organizations, grassroots movements, and influential community leaders can help build a groundswell of public opinion that pressures governments to adopt more moderate stances. It is also important to keep communication channels open, even during times of heightened tension, to avoid total breakdowns in dialogue.

Gideon Levy: Progress under extremist governments is undoubtedly difficult, but not impossible. One key strategy is to empower and amplify moderate and progressive voices within both societies. This involves supporting grassroots movements, civil society organizations, and independent media that promote peace, justice, and human rights. International actors should also engage directly with these groups, providing them with the resources and platforms needed to influence public discourse. Another strategy is to address the underlying grievances and injustices that fuel extremism. By tackling issues such as the occupation, economic disparities, and human rights abuses, we can reduce the appeal of extremist ideologies. It is also crucial to create conditions that make peace negotiations more politically viable for leaders, such as through international guarantees and phased, reciprocal steps that build trust gradually.

Moderator: Mr. Murray, what specific international measures could incentivize more moderate behavior from these governments?

Douglas Murray: International measures could include a combination of carrots and sticks. On the incentive side, economic aid and development projects can be tied to progress in peace negotiations. Trade agreements, investment, and access to international markets can be powerful motivators. On the pressure side, targeted sanctions against individuals or entities that obstruct peace efforts can be effective. Diplomatic isolation or conditional engagement can also send a strong message. Additionally, international organizations and key allies can play a role in mediating and providing security guarantees to address legitimate concerns on both sides. For example, an international peacekeeping force could be considered to help monitor and enforce agreements.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, how can internal movements and civil society effectively challenge and moderate extremist government policies?

Gideon Levy: Internal movements and civil society can challenge extremist government policies through various means. One powerful tool is non-violent resistance and civil disobedience, which can draw international attention and sympathy while putting pressure on governments to change their policies. Public campaigns and advocacy can also raise awareness and shift public opinion. Building coalitions across different segments of society, including religious, ethnic, and political groups, can create a broad-based movement for change. Education and dialogue initiatives can help dismantle extremist narratives and promote a culture of peace and coexistence. Additionally, leveraging social media and other communication technologies can amplify these efforts and connect like-minded individuals and groups across borders.

Moderator: Given the current political climates, how can both sides ensure that any progress made in negotiations is sustainable and not easily undone by future extremist shifts?

Douglas Murray: To ensure sustainability, any progress made in negotiations should be institutionalized through legal and political frameworks that are difficult to reverse. This could include binding international agreements, constitutional amendments, and the establishment of joint Israeli-Palestinian bodies to oversee implementation and dispute resolution. Engaging a broad spectrum of society in the peace process can also create a strong base of support that transcends individual leaders or political parties. Ensuring that peace agreements deliver tangible benefits to ordinary people can build a vested interest in maintaining peace. Additionally, fostering regional cooperation and integration can create interdependencies that make a return to conflict less attractive.

Gideon Levy: Sustainability can be achieved by embedding peace agreements within the broader fabric of society. This means ensuring that peace processes are inclusive and participatory, giving voice to a wide range of stakeholders, including marginalized groups. Education systems should promote narratives of peace, reconciliation, and mutual respect. Economic initiatives should be designed to benefit both communities, reducing the economic incentives for conflict. Legal frameworks should protect the rights and interests of both Israelis and Palestinians, creating a sense of justice and fairness. Finally, ongoing international involvement and monitoring can help maintain momentum and address any backsliding.

In what sense is this basically a conflict between the West (US, EU) and islam (Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah)?

Douglas Murray: While the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has significant local dynamics, it's true that it also intersects with broader geopolitical and ideological struggles. The involvement of Western powers, particularly the US and the EU, reflects their strategic interests in the region, support for Israel, and broader concerns about stability in the Middle East. On the other hand, groups like Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah see themselves as part of a broader resistance against what they perceive as Western imperialism and Zionism. This adds layers of complexity, as the conflict is not just about territorial disputes or national aspirations but also about broader ideological and religious confrontations. Iran's support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah is driven by its own regional ambitions and its opposition to US and Israeli influence. This makes the conflict part of a larger struggle for dominance and influence in the Middle East.

Gideon Levy: It is important to recognize the local and regional aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict while acknowledging the involvement of external powers. The conflict is primarily about land, rights, and national aspirations. However, external actors like the US, the EU, Iran, and various non-state actors have indeed played significant roles in shaping the dynamics of the conflict. The US and EU's support for Israel often aligns with their broader strategic interests, while Iran's backing of Hamas and Hezbollah fits into its regional strategy against Western and Israeli influence. This external involvement complicates the conflict, but it should not overshadow the core issues that need to be addressed: ending the occupation, ensuring security and rights for both Israelis and Palestinians, and finding a just and lasting solution to the conflict.

Moderator: Mr. Murray, could you elaborate on how Western involvement shapes the conflict?

Douglas Murray: Western involvement shapes the conflict in several ways. The United States, as Israel's most important ally, provides substantial military aid, political support, and diplomatic backing. This support strengthens Israel's security and negotiating position but also influences the dynamics on the ground. European countries, while also supportive of Israel, tend to emphasize the importance of a two-state solution and often criticize settlement expansion and other policies perceived as obstructing peace. This creates a complex interplay where Western powers try to balance their strategic interests with efforts to promote peace and stability. Additionally, Western involvement often leads to accusations of bias from Arab and Muslim-majority countries, further complicating diplomatic efforts.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, how does the involvement of Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah impact the conflict?

Gideon Levy: The involvement of Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah significantly impacts the conflict by adding a layer of regional and ideological complexity. Iran provides financial, military, and political support to Hamas and Hezbollah, viewing them as key components of its strategy to challenge Israeli and Western influence in the region. This support emboldens these groups and enhances their capabilities, contributing to cycles of violence and instability. Hamas, controlling Gaza, often engages in armed conflict with Israel, which in turn leads to severe humanitarian consequences for Palestinians. Hezbollah, based in Lebanon, also poses a significant military threat to Israel and has been involved in several conflicts with it. This regional involvement makes it harder to reach a purely local solution, as broader geopolitical interests are always at play.

Moderator: Given this external involvement, what steps can be taken to mitigate its impact and focus on the core issues of the conflict?

Douglas Murray: To mitigate the impact of external involvement and focus on the core issues, a multi-faceted approach is needed. First, the international community should work to create a balanced framework for negotiations that addresses the legitimate concerns of both Israelis and Palestinians without disproportionate influence from external actors. Confidence-building measures, such as economic cooperation and cultural exchanges, can help build trust. Regional actors should be encouraged to support peace initiatives and refrain from actions that escalate tensions. Additionally, international efforts should focus on addressing the root causes of the conflict, such as the occupation, security, and mutual recognition, while providing guarantees and support for a sustainable resolution.

Gideon Levy: Mitigating external involvement requires a concerted effort to prioritize the voices and needs of Israelis and Palestinians themselves. International actors should support grassroots initiatives and civil society efforts that promote dialogue, understanding, and reconciliation. Diplomatic efforts should be impartial and focused on upholding international law and human rights, rather than aligning with broader geopolitical interests. Encouraging regional cooperation and integration can also help reduce the influence of external spoilers. Ultimately, a just and lasting solution must address the fundamental issues at the heart of the conflict, such as ending the occupation, ensuring equal rights, and achieving self-determination for both peoples.

Mr. Murray, you wrote a book about the death of Europe. Is the death of Israel thinkable - and avoidable?

Douglas Murray: The question of Israel's survival is both thinkable and deeply concerning. Israel faces unique existential threats, including hostile neighbors, regional instability, and internal divisions. However, I believe the death of Israel is avoidable with the right policies and international support. Ensuring Israel's survival requires a multi-pronged approach:

Security: Israel must maintain a robust defense capability to deter and respond to threats from state and non-state actors, such as Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Diplomacy: Israel needs to continue building and strengthening alliances, not only with Western powers like the US and EU but also with regional players who can contribute to stability and peace.

Peace Efforts: Serious efforts towards a peace agreement with the Palestinians are crucial. This includes addressing core issues like borders, the status of Jerusalem, and security guarantees.

Internal Unity: Addressing internal societal divisions is also essential. Ensuring that all citizens feel included and valued within the state will help build a more resilient society.

Economic Strength: Maintaining and expanding Israel's economic achievements will provide the resources needed for security and social cohesion.

While the challenges are significant, Israel has shown remarkable resilience throughout its history. With the right strategies and support, the prospect of its demise can be firmly avoided.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, how do you view the existential threats to Israel and the ways to ensure its long-term survival?

Gideon Levy: The existential threats to Israel are indeed real, but they are largely tied to the unresolved conflict with the Palestinians and the broader regional dynamics. Ensuring Israel's long-term survival requires a fundamental shift towards justice and equality. This means ending the occupation and addressing the rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people. A just peace will not only alleviate the immediate security threats but also transform Israel's relationships with its neighbors and the international community.

Peace and Justice: Achieving a fair and lasting peace with the Palestinians is paramount. This involves a genuine commitment to a two-state solution or another equitable arrangement that ensures the rights and dignity of both peoples.

Regional Integration: Building relationships with Arab countries through initiatives like the Abraham Accords can help integrate Israel into the region, reducing hostility and fostering cooperation.

Human Rights: Embracing and upholding human rights and democratic principles within Israel and the occupied territories will enhance Israel's moral standing and legitimacy globally.

Social Cohesion: Addressing internal divisions and ensuring that all citizens, including Arab Israelis, enjoy equal rights and opportunities is crucial for a cohesive and resilient society.

Israel's survival and flourishing depend on its ability to move towards a future based on justice, equality, and peaceful coexistence. By addressing the root causes of conflict and division, Israel can secure a stable and prosperous future.

Moderator: Mr. Murray, do you agree that addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is central to Israel's long-term survival, or do you see other factors as more critical?

Douglas Murray: Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is undoubtedly a central component of ensuring Israel's long-term survival, but it is not the only factor. Israel's security, regional alliances, and internal unity are equally critical. A comprehensive approach that combines diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict with robust security measures and socio-economic development is essential. While a just and lasting peace with the Palestinians can significantly enhance Israel's security and regional standing, it must be pursued alongside other strategies to address the multifaceted nature of the threats Israel faces.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, what steps can be taken to move towards a just and lasting peace with the Palestinians that also addresses Israel's security concerns?

Gideon Levy: Moving towards a just and lasting peace requires a bold and comprehensive approach:

Negotiations: Re-engage in serious and genuine peace negotiations with the Palestinians, with a clear commitment to addressing core issues such as borders, Jerusalem, refugees, and security.

End the Occupation: Begin a phased and strategic withdrawal from the occupied territories, ensuring that the process is coordinated and does not compromise security.

International Mediation: Involve impartial international mediators to facilitate the peace process and ensure that both parties adhere to their commitments.

Confidence-Building Measures: Implement confidence-building measures, such as easing restrictions on movement and trade, to build trust and improve the daily lives of Palestinians.

Security Guarantees: Establish security arrangements that address Israel's legitimate concerns, potentially involving international peacekeeping forces or security guarantees from major powers.

By addressing both the political and security dimensions of the conflict, it is possible to create a framework that ensures the rights and safety of both Israelis and Palestinians, paving the way for a sustainable peace.

Isn't it true that the Palestinians are their own biggest enemies, with two parties hating eachother?

Gideon Levy: It's true that the internal divisions among Palestinians, particularly between Fatah and Hamas, pose significant challenges. The rivalry between these two factions has led to political fragmentation and hindered the Palestinian cause. However, it's important to recognize that these divisions are partly a result of the broader context of occupation and conflict. The internal discord should not overshadow the primary issue of the occupation and the struggle for Palestinian rights and statehood.

Addressing these internal divisions is crucial for the Palestinians to present a unified front in their negotiations with Israel. Here are some points to consider:

Internal Reconciliation: Efforts towards reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas are essential. Unity can strengthen the Palestinian position in negotiations and improve governance and stability in Palestinian territories.

Democratic Processes: Holding democratic elections and establishing a legitimate, representative government can help unify the Palestinian political landscape.

International Support: The international community can play a role in facilitating reconciliation efforts and supporting democratic institutions within Palestinian society.

Addressing Root Causes: The divisions are exacerbated by the occupation, economic hardship, and external pressures. Addressing these root causes can help reduce internal strife.

While internal divisions are a challenge, they are not insurmountable. By focusing on reconciliation and addressing the broader issues of occupation and rights, the Palestinians can work towards a more cohesive and effective movement for their aspirations.

Douglas Murray: The internal divisions among Palestinians, particularly between Fatah and Hamas, significantly complicate the peace process. These divisions not only weaken the Palestinian negotiating position but also lead to governance issues and periodic outbreaks of violence. For Israel, this fragmentation poses a challenge, as it is unclear who represents the Palestinian people and whether any agreement reached would be enforceable across all Palestinian territories.

Negotiation Challenges: The lack of a unified Palestinian leadership complicates negotiations. Israel needs a single, authoritative counterpart to ensure that any agreements can be implemented effectively.

Security Concerns: The rivalry between Fatah and Hamas often leads to violence, which can spill over into conflicts with Israel, increasing insecurity for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Governance and Aid: Fragmentation affects governance in Palestinian territories, leading to inefficiencies and corruption. It also complicates the delivery of international aid and development programs.

While these internal divisions are a significant hurdle, the broader goal of achieving peace and stability should not be abandoned. Efforts to support Palestinian reconciliation and strengthen governance structures are essential for any long-term resolution of the conflict.

Moderator: Mr. Levy, what specific steps can be taken to foster reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas?

Gideon Levy: Fostering reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas requires a multi-faceted approach:

Dialogue and Mediation: Establishing a sustained and inclusive dialogue between Fatah and Hamas, potentially mediated by neutral international actors, can help bridge differences.

Power-Sharing Agreements: Developing power-sharing agreements that respect the political realities and popular support of both factions can help create a unified government.

Elections: Organizing free and fair elections across all Palestinian territories can provide a democratic mandate and legitimacy to the leadership.

Addressing Humanitarian Needs: Improving living conditions in Gaza and the West Bank through coordinated international aid can reduce tensions and foster cooperation.

Common Goals: Emphasizing common goals, such as ending the occupation and achieving statehood, can help unify the factions around shared objectives.

Reconciliation is a challenging but necessary step for the Palestinians to strengthen their political stance and improve their prospects for peace and statehood.

Last question for both: which political solution to this conflict do you propose?

Douglas Murray: The political solution I propose is a two-state solution, which remains the most viable and just path to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This solution envisions two states for two peoples, living side by side in peace and security.

Borders: The borders should be based on the pre-1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps to accommodate major Israeli settlements and ensure territorial contiguity for a Palestinian state.

Jerusalem: Jerusalem should be a shared capital for both states, with arrangements to ensure access to and protection of the holy sites for all religions.

Security: Robust security arrangements must be put in place to guarantee Israel's security and prevent the emergence of terrorist threats from the Palestinian state. This could involve demilitarization of the Palestinian state and international guarantees.

Refugees: The Palestinian refugee issue should be addressed with a combination of resettlement, compensation, and limited right of return, ensuring that the demographic balance of Israel is maintained.

Normalization: The peace agreement should lead to normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world, fostering economic cooperation and regional stability.

This solution requires compromises from both sides but offers a framework for a sustainable and peaceful coexistence.

Gideon Levy: I also advocate for a two-state solution, but with a strong emphasis on justice, equality, and human rights. The framework must ensure a fair and lasting peace that addresses the core issues at the heart of the conflict.

End the Occupation: The occupation must end, with a complete withdrawal from the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the dismantling of illegal settlements.

Borders and Sovereignty: The borders should be based on the 1967 lines, with minor, mutually agreed land swaps. The Palestinian state must be fully sovereign, independent, and viable.

Jerusalem: East Jerusalem should be the capital of the Palestinian state, with guarantees for freedom of worship and access to holy sites for all faiths.

Security and Demilitarization: While security is crucial, any arrangements should respect Palestinian sovereignty and dignity. International peacekeeping forces could be deployed to ensure compliance and security for both states.

Right of Return: The refugee issue should be addressed through a combination of right of return, resettlement in the Palestinian state, and compensation. Israel should acknowledge the suffering of Palestinian refugees.

Equal Rights: Ensuring that Arab Israelis have full and equal rights within Israel is essential for lasting peace and social cohesion.

This approach prioritizes justice and equality, recognizing the legitimate rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Moderator: Thank you both for your thoughtful proposals. It is clear that while there are differences in emphasis, both of you support a two-state solution as the most viable path to achieving a just and lasting peace. Addressing the core issues with a commitment to justice, security, and mutual recognition is essential for any sustainable resolution.

THE MUNK DEBATE

[1] Here you can listen to a highly charged real-life debate (June 17, 2024) in the Canadian Munk Debates series on this topic, in which both Murray and Levy participated:

• Douglas Murray - PRO - British conservative author
• Natasha Hausdorff - PRO - UK lawyers for Israel
• Mehdi Hasan - CON - British-Amercian journalist
• Gideon Levy - CON - Jewish journalist (Haaretz)

After this debate, the PRO-vote increased from 61% to 66%. My guess is that since Murray was both the first and the last speaker, both the primacy effect and the recency effect (both cases of the serial-position effect) worked in his favor. The debated statement "Anti-Zionism is antisemitism" was, of course, also pro-Zionism. Unfortunately this video is behind a paywall, for 25 CAD.

Here's a copy of the debate video that may soon be taken offline due to copyright reasons.