Greatest Collapse of Israel Support in History! | M. Marquardt & R. Sanders

## Richard Sanders background What emerges from the conversation is the portrait of a seasoned filmmaker and investigative journalist whose career has been shaped by three decades in British television and a string of high-profile documentaries. The exchange traces a trajectory from mainstream outlets to independent platforms, driven in part by the professional consequences of tackling politically combustible subjects. The discussion conveys that making films about contentious issues—Palestine most notably—led to a cooling of institutional opportunities, and that this narrowing of mainstream doors propelled a turn toward international outlets and independent media. The conversation frames this professional pivot not as retreat but as redirection. Working with outlets outside the British broadcast mainstream enabled the creation of work that would have been difficult, if not impossible, to make for domestic channels. The documentaries that followed—on Gaza and on the aftermath of October 7—are presented as the kind of work that justifies a life's effort in journalism. The broader point is less about personal victimhood than about how media ecosystems shape which stories get told: when established institutions close ranks, independent and international platforms often pick up the slack. This section of the exchange also introduces an entrepreneurial impulse. With the contraction of opportunities in legacy media, a new show is planned as a curated weekly showcase of independent journalism—an attempt to create a navigational hub in a chaotic landscape of online news. The idea is to sort "wheat from chaff," and in doing so to build a center of gravity for viewers hungry for rigorous alternatives to mainstream framing. The implication is that independent media are not merely substitutes; they are corrective mechanisms for democratic information flows when traditional gatekeepers fail. ## Corbyn smear campaign The conversation offers a granular reading of the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, framing it as a deliberate political operation that exploited the moral weight of anti-Semitism to neutralize an electoral threat. Rather than reducing the episode to a single cause, the discussion maps a confluence of actors—the security establishment, right-leaning media, wealthy interests and lobbying groups—who found common cause in undermining Corbyn’s leadership. The accusation of anti-Semitism served as an especially potent instrument because of its historical resonance and its power to shut down debate. Yet the account resists a conspiratorial reduction that would deny any genuine concern. What the discussion stresses is a dual dynamic: tactical manipulation on the one hand, and sincere confusion on the other. Many people, including liberal Jewish voices, struggled to separate anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism; that conceptual blur supplied fertile ground for accusations to take root. By reframing criticism of Israel as inherently antisemitic, the campaign achieved both legal and cultural leverage—pushing institutions to adopt restrictive definitions that constrict legitimate political speech. A key feature of the critique is the role of definitional instruments such as the IHRA working definition of antisemitism. The conversation argues that, in practice, some provisions function to preempt Palestinian narratives and to forestall political critique by equating anti-Zionism with racism. That semantic move had concrete political effects: it not only weakened Corbyn but also gutted the broader left in Britain, producing a realignment of party politics and a narrowing of acceptable discourse. ## Starmer Mandelson and Epstein The conversation moves from the mechanics of smear to the internal politics that followed, detailing how the victorious faction consolidated power within the main opposition party. The account paints a picture of a party captured by a managerial mentality that set itself the goal not simply of displacing a faction but of eradicating the social base that had produced it. That purge, the discussion suggests, has inflicted long-term damage: core urban constituencies and activist networks that once formed Labour’s reliable foundation have been hollowed out, creating a political vacuum. Into this void step other forces—new parties, rising political movements—that the discussion sees as beneficiaries of Labour’s collapse. The electoral arithmetic that once protected Labour now looks fragile, with the party’s current polling portrayed as perilously low and susceptible to fragmentation. The argument is that the strategy of internal decapitation has yielded immediate control but may, in the medium term, cost the party its relevance. An adjacent strand of the conversation connects these political dynamics to broader scandals that expose elites and their networks. The emergence of investigative revelations about Jeffrey Epstein—and the surrounding networks of power—figured prominently in the exchange as emblematic of how hidden patronage and compromised elites can shape public life. Epstein is discussed not simply as a criminal case but as a prism through which to view elite impunity and the mechanisms by which power protects itself. The linkage is political as well as moral: when establishment actors and their associates are implicated and then insulated, it corrodes public trust and sharpens popular disaffection. ## Gaza films and media cover-up The conversation turns forcefully to media coverage of Gaza after October 7, arguing that mainstream British television was unable or unwilling to carry certain narratives and images. The speakers contend that the scale and brutality of the campaign in Gaza forced a crack in the consensus: millions who watched the images of slaughter and suffering could not reconcile conventional framings that reduced all protest to anti-Semitism. The documentaries made for non-British outlets are presented as filling a documentary gap, giving viewers a more unmediated picture of civilian suffering and occupation. There is a pointed claim that mainstream outlets engaged in selective coverage or outright cover-up, limiting the circulation of footage and testimony that would complicate official or establishment narratives. The political weight of that omission is not merely journalistic; it reshapes public perception and policy. The conversation suggests that independents and international broadcasters stepped in precisely because domestic platforms were constrained by institutional and political pressures, whether commercial or governmental. This section frames documentary filmmaking as a form of civic witnessing. Where mainstream institutions falter, long-form investigative film can provide the context, history and testimony that short news cycles omit. That, in turn, has electoral and cultural consequences: when alternative narratives propagate—via online platforms, social media and curated independent outlets—the public’s attitude toward foreign policy can shift rapidly, producing what the conversation describes as a historic erosion in support for Israel across Western public opinion. ## France and Europe repression The exchange broadens to a continental sweep, diagnosing a worrying trend across France and other European states: the criminalization of certain forms of political expression under the rubric of security or anti-terrorism. The conversation raises alarms about the summonsing of elected officials and activists on charges related to “apology for terrorism,” and situates these legal moves within a broader crackdown on dissent. The implication is that state machinery is being repurposed to police political boundaries, curtail protest and chill solidarity movements. France, the discussion suggests, is following Britain’s footsteps in adopting legal and administrative tools that expand executive power over speech and assembly. This is not presented as an isolated legal dispute but as part of a politics

Greatest Collapse of Israel Support in History! | M. Marquardt & R. Sanders The West is abbandoning Israel. Not yet politically, but public support accross the EU, UK and even in the United States is so heavily anti-Israel now, that there is no coming back from the Zionist Epstein class from this one. The shift is really quite remarcable, and probably Israel's greatest loss of its international public image since its inception. In this talk, Felix Marquardt speaks with award- winning British filmmaker and journalist Richard Sanders about the campaign against Jeremy Corbyn, the use of antisemitism claims against Palestine supporters, Peter Mandelson and the Epstein story, Gaza documentaries after October 7, media cover-up, Palestine Action, and the wider crackdown on speech in Britain and France. Links: Double Down News YouTube: https://youtube.com /@DoubleDownNews Double Down News website: https://www.doubledown.news/ Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com (Opt in for Academic Section from your profile settings: https://pascallottaz.substack.com/s/academic) Merch: https://neutralitystudies-shop. fourthwall.com Donation: https://neutralitystudies.com/donate Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:57 Richard Sanders background 00:05:29 Corbyn smear campaign 00:15:33 Starmer Mandelson and Epstein 00:26:38 Gaza films and media cover-up 00:34:03 France and Europe repression 00:35:36 Palestine Action and terror laws 00:43:12 Lessons for France 00:49:45 New show and closing #Pascal Welcome back, everybody. This is Pascal Lottaz from Literary Artist Studies, and today I would like to share with you another collaboration that I did with Felix Marquardt, who interviewed the filmmaker and journalist Richard Sanders. It's a wonderful conversation. I recommend it a lot. And here we go. #Marquardt Today, it's my great pleasure to welcome Richard Sanders, award-winning British filmmaker and journalist, and director of some of the most important investigative documentaries of the last decade. Richard, welcome. Thank you. Thank you for having me, Felix. We have a lot to cover, starting from the case of Ruma Hassan, a member of the European Parliament who was summoned by the French police last week on charges of apology for terrorism. As it seems, France is following the same path as Britain. There's much we'll have to discuss on that account. But first, I'd like you to introduce yourself to our audience. Who are you? Where do you come from? And how did you come to dedicate so much of your career to Palestine? So, my name is Richard Sanders. -- 1 of 18 -- #Sanders I am a filmmaker, also a journalist and an author. I've been working in British television for about 30 years now. I've made over 50 films for terrestrial TV. I worked mainly recently for Al Jazeera's investigative unit on a series of films there. How I came to devote so much time to Palestine: I made a film three years ago now for Al Jazeera's investigative unit, which was the second episode in The Labour Files series. We'd got a big dump of internal documents from the Labour Party, and it was really sort of an exposé of the machinations of the Labour right and the techniques and tactics that were used to undermine Jeremy Corbyn. It's a theme people have rather picked up on since. You have *The Fraud* by Paul Holden, very good book. Also *Left Out* by Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire, very much tells the same story that we were. Anyway, having made my film, episode two, it very much offered an alternative perspective on the antisemitism crisis, which did so much to undermine Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party. Primarily through interviewing Jewish members of the Labour Party—the vast majority of the interviewees in the film were Jewish. And, you know, I regarded myself as doing journalism. But at that point, the phone stopped ringing. And it's an experience a number of people have shared with me that they've had as well. Your career just suddenly comes to a juddering halt. Now, it's interesting because... I'm not that bothered, in a strange way. Because firstly, it meant I then spent the next three years or so making films for Al Jazeera's investigative unit. We made a documentary on October 7th and also a film called *Gaza*, sort of an hour and 20-minute-long film about Gaza, which went out in October 2024. So after a year, a year into the genocide. #Sanders And they're films I couldn't have made for British television. I simply couldn't have done it. And they're the films that, on my deathbed, will justify my existence, if you know what I mean. So now Al Jazeera's investigative unit is rather scaling back. So what I'm about to do now—and forgive me, I'm going to do a little plug here. No, please, please, by all means. So I'm working now full-time for Double Down News, which people might be familiar with as an independent news outlet based in London, which I've done quite a bit of work for in the past. But I'm now going to work full-time for them. Basically, we are going to do a show, a weekly show, a weekly magazine news program called *Double Down Newswatch*. And it will act as a showcase for the best of independent media. It works rather in the same way that there is now an enormous political vacuum in Britain, certainly on the left, to the left of the Labour Party, which the Greens at the moment are filling. So journalistically, you have a huge vacuum. You have large numbers of people who have either lost faith in mainstream media — in the BBC, ITV, The Guardian, what have you — or actually, simply viewing patterns are changing so much that far more people are getting their news online anyway. And really, it's a sort of one-stop shop. It's a sort of guide to the world of independent media. I think -- 2 of 18 -- most people, if you want to access independent media at the moment, what you have to do is scroll through X and be very active on social media or what have you. And then you don't really know what you're looking at. You don't... are you looking at something which is a really solid, good bit of journalism? Or are you reading some crazy conspiracy theorist in their basement? So part of what we do is curating, sort of sorting the wheat from the chaff. So the hope is we'll become the sort of center of gravity of a whole new independent media universe. Obviously, we're British-focused because we're British, but we very much focus on international news, and we'd certainly hope to get viewers, large numbers of viewers, from outside of Britain as well. So that's what I'm about to start doing. #Marquardt That's fantastic. And I'm sure that many of our viewers are familiar with some of the work that you've already done for Double Down News and with Loki, who has a special place in the Double Down ecosystem, apparently. I think since one of the objectives of this podcast is to speak to a French audience, you were talking about what happened to the, so to speak, the real British left, right? And how accusations of anti-Semitism just basically sort of got rid of a whole politics in a way in Britain. And I think this is particularly relevant for the French public because. Some would argue that La France Insoumise is one of the last real strong left-wing parties left, not just in Europe, but in the West. And so there's very much the same kind of attacks being leveled against Jean-Luc Mélenchon and many members of his party regarding various accusations of anti- Semitism, etc. So I think it would be very interesting for our audience to hear more about what exactly happened in the UK, and how you've spent a lot of time on this, and sort of see not just the story, but the latest that has come out, among others, in the Epstein files. #Pascal Hey, very brief intermission because I was recently banned from YouTube. And although I'm back, this can happen anytime again. So please consider subscribing not only here, but to my mailing list on Substack. That's pascallottaz.substack.com. The link's going to be in the description below. And now, back to the video. #Sanders It's very interesting what happened in Britain. I think there are two things going on. They alight on anti-Semitism as a wonderful weapon to undermine Jeremy Corbyn because it sort of hits him where it hurts. This is a man who has spent his whole life as a campaigner against racism. And I think it left him sort of confused and disoriented. It proved a very powerful weapon for disorienting him. I'm not sure how much the general public cared about it. I think in terms of the general public, Brexit was a much bigger factor in undermining Jeremy Corbyn, but it was very successful in knocking him -- 3 of 18 -- off balance. Now, I think there are two things that go on. Okay, it's important to get this clear. One is, you know, there is this thing called the Israel lobby, and it's very powerful. And, um, #Marquardt They quite cynically used, manipulated, and exploited the issue to undermine Corbyn. #Sanders Now, the Israel lobby, the Zionist lobby, is very powerful. It ain't that powerful. Now, the point with Jeremy Corbyn was that there were a whole raft of organizations. The entire establishment wanted to destroy Jeremy Corbyn, particularly the sort of security state, you know, which was horrified at the prospect of Jeremy Corbyn being prime minister — the sort of transatlantic security state. They really, really didn't want Jeremy Corbyn to be prime minister. Obviously, the right-wing press, big business, and so on. Rich people didn't want Jeremy Corbyn to be prime minister, essentially. And they latched onto this as the perfect weapon. So that's why it became sort of turbo-powered. Partly, yes, because of the power of the Israel lobby, but also it was in so many other people's interests. But also, and I think it's very important to bear this in mind, I'm always slightly wary of people who talk about it entirely in terms of it being a scam and a hoax and a fraud. Another reason it had such traction is that a lot of people genuinely believed it. I think there is a massive genuine confusion out there about the difference between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. And, you know, I know a lot of Jewish people, liberal Jewish people, who do struggle with anti-Zionism. I think they genuinely think it's suspect — where's it coming from and why, you know, why are people pushing this and so on. It's actually what they managed to do — to redefine anti-Semitism as anti-Zionism. At that point, of course, you're going to find anti-Semites everywhere. You know, inevitably, it's such a powerful thing, because as you and I know, anti-Semitism as a charge has such enormous and terrible resonance in European history that for, you know, liberal, progressive, left-leaning people, it's an issue where you don't want to be on the wrong side of it. I mean, the minute people invoke it, people tend to slightly switch their minds off. So I think there was an element of that as well. You know, I think there were a lot of people sort of going along with the thing against Corbyn who weren't lying. You know, they were being sincere. They were being honest. I think they were just wrong. As time has gone on and people like Paul Holden and Gabriel Pogrund and Patrick Maguire have done more work, I think the degree to which we were looking at a very organized and deliberate and targeted campaign has become clearer and clearer. And I think that was the dominant element. I mean, if you look at it, every time this raises its head, it drives remorselessly towards forcing people or organizations to adopt the IHRA definition -- 4 of 18 -- of anti-Semitism. Remorselessly. That's always what they try to force people to do. Which has been adopted in France as well. Yes, it was adopted by the British government. There are all sorts of legal and certainly intellectual problems with it. But as you'll be aware, Clause 7 of it says you cannot refer to a Jewish... I can't remember the ex