For our next Zoom call, we have a special guest, Nachman Shai, Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs. To accommodate his schedule, the call will be on Thursday (rather than the usual Friday) and 11 AM ET (rather than the usual Noon). It’s unusual for an Israeli cabinet minister to interact with an audience that includes not only critics of Israeli policy, but (in my case, at least) critics of Jewish statehood itself. So give him credit. It should be a fascinating exchange. As always, we’ll include your questions. If you subscribe, you’ll also get access to all of our previous conversations, with people like Rashid Khalidi, Noam Chomsky, Spencer Ackerman, and Francis Fukuyama.
"On October 28 I’m debating New York Times columnist Bret Stephens at Temple Emanu-El in New York City on whether anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism."
Wait, you already did exactly that for IQ2US last year (though you each had a partner that time).
I've been looking forward to a debate that hasn't been done yet: Is Zionism a form of Anti-Palestinianism?
You and your debate partner Yousef Munayyer have done more than anyone else recently to bring attention to anti-Palestinianism, which is much more pervasive in the U.S. than anti-Semitism. Especially in Jewish spaces, such as the one where next week's event will take place.
At last year's IQ2US debate, I thought the strangest part was when Stephens brought up the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine. He was using it as an example of something that "in theory, that's not a racist doctrine", but "in reality, we know exactly what kind of horrors that decision led to." The point he was trying to make was that the "civic nationalism" of your suggested "neutral, secular state" is the same kind of idea that might sound nice in theory, but is catastrophic in practice. Of course, the irony is that "separate but equal" is just what Stephens himself claims to be proposing for Jews and Palestinians in Israel/Palestine. Pointing out the theory vs. practice of the American "separate but equal" doctrine is something that would make more sense for a "neutral, secular state" advocate to do, not a "Jewish state" advocate like Stephens.
Peter, you end with "Hope to see you on Friday", but I was actually hoping to see you a day earlier, on your rescheduled call. ;-)
In the spring of 2020, your Thursday guest Nachman Shai taught a course at Emory with the title "Public Diplomacy in Low Intensity Conflict: Israel as a case study." It might as well have been titled "How to be a Propagandist for Israel", as you can see from the syllabus here:
I have seen no reference to this Emory course from Palestinian activist websites. I think we know what would happen if a university like Emory offered a similar course on how to advocate for Palestinian rights.
very interesting. sorry--i should have said Thursday
"On October 28 I’m debating New York Times columnist Bret Stephens at Temple Emanu-El in New York City on whether anti-Zionism constitutes anti-Semitism."
Wait, you already did exactly that for IQ2US last year (though you each had a partner that time).
I've been looking forward to a debate that hasn't been done yet: Is Zionism a form of Anti-Palestinianism?
You and your debate partner Yousef Munayyer have done more than anyone else recently to bring attention to anti-Palestinianism, which is much more pervasive in the U.S. than anti-Semitism. Especially in Jewish spaces, such as the one where next week's event will take place.
At last year's IQ2US debate, I thought the strangest part was when Stephens brought up the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine. He was using it as an example of something that "in theory, that's not a racist doctrine", but "in reality, we know exactly what kind of horrors that decision led to." The point he was trying to make was that the "civic nationalism" of your suggested "neutral, secular state" is the same kind of idea that might sound nice in theory, but is catastrophic in practice. Of course, the irony is that "separate but equal" is just what Stephens himself claims to be proposing for Jews and Palestinians in Israel/Palestine. Pointing out the theory vs. practice of the American "separate but equal" doctrine is something that would make more sense for a "neutral, secular state" advocate to do, not a "Jewish state" advocate like Stephens.
Peter, you end with "Hope to see you on Friday", but I was actually hoping to see you a day earlier, on your rescheduled call. ;-)
In the spring of 2020, your Thursday guest Nachman Shai taught a course at Emory with the title "Public Diplomacy in Low Intensity Conflict: Israel as a case study." It might as well have been titled "How to be a Propagandist for Israel", as you can see from the syllabus here:
http://ismi.emory.edu/home/documents/Public%20Diplomacy%20in%20Low%20Intensity%20Conflict%20draft%20syllabus.pdf
I have seen no reference to this Emory course from Palestinian activist websites. I think we know what would happen if a university like Emory offered a similar course on how to advocate for Palestinian rights.