Send us a text

One sentence can change the temperature of a room: “Anti‑Zionism is anti‑Semitism.” We revisit a gripping 2019 Intelligence Squared debate featuring Melanie Phillips and Einat Wilf for the motion, and Ilan Pappé and Mehdi Hasan against it, to examine how history, identity, and power collide over those seven words. The case for the motion traces a familiar pattern from medieval scapegoating to modern rhetoric, arguing that efforts to delegitimize Israel recycle classic antisemitic tropes under a respectable gloss. The case against insists that anti‑Zionism is a political and moral critique—of occupation, dispossession, and unequal rights—not a blanket hatred of Jews, and points to Jewish and Israeli anti‑Zionist traditions, Christian Zionist antisemitism, and the right to scrutinize any state.

Across sharp exchanges and audience questions, we unpack definitions, the Nakba’s legacy, equal‑citizenship vs nation‑state models, IHRA controversies, UN attention, and where criticism slides into bigotry. The debate doesn’t offer easy answers; it forces honest accounting. Is Israel a state for all its citizens or a nation privileging one group? Are accusations of apartheid and ethnic cleansing rigorous analysis or slander? Do double standards exist, and if so, where—and why?

After Oct 7, these questions feel painfully urgent. We reflect on grief, solidarity, and responsibility: how to hold rising far‑right antisemitism in view while reckoning with Palestinian dispossession; how to critique policy without dehumanizing people; how personal histories shape our stance. Long‑form debate slows us down, restores nuance, and asks better questions.

If you value conversations that resist easy labels and reward careful listening, hit follow, share with a friend, and leave a review telling us where you landed—and what changed your mind.

Support the show