“Does Israel have a right to exist?” is a great gotcha question for use against the left. It strips out complexity and context to pose as a “straightforward” question that can only answered in the affirmative: “Yes.” It demands of the left that it jettison its supreme values of moral consistency and universal rights. It must do so as a precondition for being given permission to talk. Robinson’s question, for example, foregrounds one right – that of Israeli Jews to security – over another: that of Palestinians not to be ethnically cleansed, not to be forced to live under apartheid rule, not to be subjected to genocide. No true leftist can accept the premises of Robinson’s question. Which makes the ease with which Labour, Lib Dem, Reform and Restore politicians are able to answer it with a simple “Yes” all the more horrifying. The state of Israel’s theoretical “right to exist” is a switch and bait. As a matter of fact, Israel does exist as a state – beyond question. And as a matter of fact, it exists as a state by denying the right of many ordinary Palestinians to exist as people and as a community. Of the two conflicting rights – the right to oppress and the right not to be oppressed – the second right clearly is of more importance and in greater need of protection. There is a reason why there are so few truly leftwing politicians visible in public life. Because the media’s role is to weed them out, to discredit them, to place them beyond the pale, to other them. It’s extremely difficult for leftwing politicians to advance through the discourse policing of a state and billionaire-owned media whose very job is to prevent the political left from gaining exposure for its ideas, ideas that challenge the hoarded wealth of the billionaire class. It’s a vicious circle – and meant to be. If left-wingers adopt a confrontational approach, rightly treating the rigged premises of interviews with disdain – the George Galloway model – they are portrayed as extreme, bullying, populist, terrorist-sympathising and, of course, antisemitic. The wider public is alienated. If left-wingers prefer respectful disagreement and dialogue, engaging with the rigged premises of interviews – the Jeremy Corbyn model – they are accused of being extreme, evasive, populist, terrorist-sympathising and, of course, antisemitic. The wider public is again alienated. Zack Polanski is now trying to pick his way between these two poles to find a third way. Firm but reasonable. Assertive but not hectoring. Polite but not evasive. He is a master interviewee. But even he is struggling to manage interviews that are so heavily loaded against him. None of this is fair. How could it be? The billionaires have all the wealth. They own everything, including the media. Why would they allow a level playing field, fairness in the public square, when fairness would end in only one outcome: the end of their privilege? This is an extract from my latest article How the BBC sets a trap to make sure leftwing politicians never get a fair hearing. Find a link to the rest in the reply post ⬇️