Well, at least they had to import the team that supports the view that the Jewish "lobby" has undue influence. That frankly surprises me. I figured that they'd have no shortage of home-grown advocates. And where is the Jewish lobby suppressing debate in Europe? Where in Europe are the Jews powerful? Fairly affluent? Sure. But powerful enough to stifle debate? Where in Europe are anti-Israeli views being suppressed?
In the US, whether Israel is in favor or not depends on the current president more than anything else. Also, the political culture is more in our favor, but journalists and commentators are not prevented from showing Israel in a bad light. The thing is that extreme anti-Zionism/Semitism in Europe just isn't common in our society; and if such expressions were to expand, it wouldn't be just American Jews opposing them.
As long as this Arab team is visiting Oxford, maybe the club can hold more debates with them, for instance a debate on attempts by the Arab lobby to influence perceptions of Israel, or a debate about the power of the oil lobby, or on the power of petrodollars. Hmmmm, I'm sure the Doha team is well primed to tackle those issues. Or how about a debate on the control that the PA holds over journalists in the West Bank, where they have to sign releases saying that they'll write nothing critical of the Palestinians or the PA. Now that's stifling. I mean, as long as they're hanging around the Oxford Union.
One other point: Who's arguing against the motion? I wonder how far and wide they had to go to drum someone up.
It's not splitting hairs to the sad group of Jews who have accepted our enemy's sales pitch that Zionism and Judaism are completely separate things so that they can attack Jews and the Jewish State while trying to insulate themselves from charges of anti-Semitism.
Everyone knows what the "pro-Israel lobby" is, WHO it is, and what the people who rail about it (from QATAR, no less) are all about.
The question is, is it a "pro-Israel" lobby or is it more of a pro-Likud lobby? Just because AIPAC says it is acting in Israel's best interest doesn't mean it in fact is.
"... which is by no means the same thing." Ron Newman
Three questions:
1) What persons/groups view them as precisely the same thing or do so for all practical intents and purposes?
2) What persons/groups, more conscientiously, view them as decidedly different things?
3) What persons/groups outwardly express one thing (#2) while believing or acting upon another thing (#1)?
When the Oxford Union, along with other putatively disinterested fora, begin to address the depth and breadth of the underlying deceits and dichotomies (e.g., the conditions/definitions of "refugees" as determined by the UNRWA vs. the conditions/definitions of refugees as determined by the UNHCR) then it will be easier to accept the notion that more transparent and more honest debates are taking place. And emphatically, the stark difference between those two U.N. agencies' treatment of and conceptions of "refugee status" is but a single, if particularly salient and revealing, example of the many underlying factors Walt & Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter and Finkelstein and sundry others fail to take into account when forwarding their putatively earnest analyses, debates and talking points.
By contrast, when a Joan Peters forwards her thesis all manner of umbrage and righteous indignation ensues.
The contrast is stark, and when that contrast in more conscientiously examined along empirical/historical and rational grounds it is also revelatory. In fact it is revelatory in a manner that demands difficult choices be made.
Ron, what kind of nuance are you going to get from people from Qatar? What do THEY mean when they talk about a pro-Israel lobby? The nuances of Labor v. Likud policy issues? What do they mean when they talk about a "pro-Israel" lobby? JUST AIPAC? No, AIPAC is just the first target.
When I see an honest debate in their OWN countries (including Britain), I'll be impressed.
I want to suggest a debating topic for the Oxford and Qatar crowds, to add to Joanne's list.
How about our so-called Leftists discussing the finer points of the exploitation and humiliation of foreign workers in the Persian Gulf emirates and sultanates, from Kuwait to Ras al-Khaima and Oman, with Qatar in between.
What is done with the surplus labor value that they produce? What about their rights to organize in labor unions to demand and strike for better conditions? How about their personal right to freedom of worship? Is there slavery on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf? Yes, let all those issues be taken up in a genuine debate at the Oxford Uniion.
Maybe an authentic latter-day Trotskyist saint, a specialist in the class struggle perhaps, could defend the position that only a right-wing Zionist ape or pig could possibly worry about the foreign workers in Kuwait or Qatar or Ras al-Khaima. Maybe the class struggle in the utterly impoverished Gulf emirates [super rich sultanates??] will have to wait for a final solution of the Jewish Problem.
Excellent suggestion Eliyahu, albeit one that induces a type of dark, ironic laughter since the moment one considers such an idea a correspondingly immediate realization takes place, i.e. the realization that any theme beyond one that is anti-Israel (either overtly, more suggestively or more subtly still, as the constant substrate of virtually all M.E. oriented debates wherein the Arab and Persian Muslim malpractices receive little or no comment and the Israeli presence receives a constant acknowledgement or even a hyper-critique).
For example, imagine, here in the U.S., someone like a Judy Woodruff giving Arab potentates a thoroughgoing, even trenchant critique on PBS. Or differently, CNN or the BBC. When hades freezes over - if then.
Just because AIPAC says it is acting in Israel's best interest doesn't mean it in fact is.
Mind you, the same can be said of the "Progressive" groups and organizations. Even the avowed anti-Zionists on Daily Kos often say, "We think Israel is heading toward the abyss and we're trying to save it".
It goes to show you that the debate about intent and sincerity is misplaced--feelings are not amenable to intellectual discussion. The real focus should be on truth vs. falsehood. I don't care if the "progressives" say they're for Israel; what I say is that their belief that the security of Israel lies in negotiations and concessions and treaties is wrong. Wrong, as in, "false", "not in accordance with the facts on the ground", "disjoint from reality", et cetera, et cetera.
Oh for heaven's sake.
Well, at least they had to import the team that supports the view that the Jewish "lobby" has undue influence. That frankly surprises me. I figured that they'd have no shortage of home-grown advocates. And where is the Jewish lobby suppressing debate in Europe? Where in Europe are the Jews powerful? Fairly affluent? Sure. But powerful enough to stifle debate? Where in Europe are anti-Israeli views being suppressed?
In the US, whether Israel is in favor or not depends on the current president more than anything else. Also, the political culture is more in our favor, but journalists and commentators are not prevented from showing Israel in a bad light. The thing is that extreme anti-Zionism/Semitism in Europe just isn't common in our society; and if such expressions were to expand, it wouldn't be just American Jews opposing them.
As long as this Arab team is visiting Oxford, maybe the club can hold more debates with them, for instance a debate on attempts by the Arab lobby to influence perceptions of Israel, or a debate about the power of the oil lobby, or on the power of petrodollars. Hmmmm, I'm sure the Doha team is well primed to tackle those issues. Or how about a debate on the control that the PA holds over journalists in the West Bank, where they have to sign releases saying that they'll write nothing critical of the Palestinians or the PA. Now that's stifling. I mean, as long as they're hanging around the Oxford Union.
One other point: Who's arguing against the motion? I wonder how far and wide they had to go to drum someone up.
Both your headline and HNN's use the phrase "Jewish Lobby".
However, the actual motion to be debated refers to the "pro-Israel lobby", which is by no means the same thing.
Also, even though the headlines have the words "Undue Influence" in quotes, this phrase appears nowhere in the text of the motion.
I think you're splitting hairs, Ron. OK, so the language wasn't quite so loaded, but the subject matter is still disturbing.
It's not splitting hairs to the sad group of Jews who have accepted our enemy's sales pitch that Zionism and Judaism are completely separate things so that they can attack Jews and the Jewish State while trying to insulate themselves from charges of anti-Semitism.
Everyone knows what the "pro-Israel lobby" is, WHO it is, and what the people who rail about it (from QATAR, no less) are all about.
The question is, is it a "pro-Israel" lobby or is it more of a pro-Likud lobby? Just because AIPAC says it is acting in Israel's best interest doesn't mean it in fact is.
"... which is by no means the same thing." Ron Newman
Three questions:
1) What persons/groups view them as precisely the same thing or do so for all practical intents and purposes?
2) What persons/groups, more conscientiously, view them as decidedly different things?
3) What persons/groups outwardly express one thing (#2) while believing or acting upon another thing (#1)?
When the Oxford Union, along with other putatively disinterested fora, begin to address the depth and breadth of the underlying deceits and dichotomies (e.g., the conditions/definitions of "refugees" as determined by the UNRWA vs. the conditions/definitions of refugees as determined by the UNHCR) then it will be easier to accept the notion that more transparent and more honest debates are taking place. And emphatically, the stark difference between those two U.N. agencies' treatment of and conceptions of "refugee status" is but a single, if particularly salient and revealing, example of the many underlying factors Walt & Mearsheimer, Jimmy Carter and Finkelstein and sundry others fail to take into account when forwarding their putatively earnest analyses, debates and talking points.
By contrast, when a Joan Peters forwards her thesis all manner of umbrage and righteous indignation ensues.
The contrast is stark, and when that contrast in more conscientiously examined along empirical/historical and rational grounds it is also revelatory. In fact it is revelatory in a manner that demands difficult choices be made.
Ron, what kind of nuance are you going to get from people from Qatar? What do THEY mean when they talk about a pro-Israel lobby? The nuances of Labor v. Likud policy issues? What do they mean when they talk about a "pro-Israel" lobby? JUST AIPAC? No, AIPAC is just the first target.
When I see an honest debate in their OWN countries (including Britain), I'll be impressed.
I want to suggest a debating topic for the Oxford and Qatar crowds, to add to Joanne's list.
How about our so-called Leftists discussing the finer points of the exploitation and humiliation of foreign workers in the Persian Gulf emirates and sultanates, from Kuwait to Ras al-Khaima and Oman, with Qatar in between.
What is done with the surplus labor value that they produce? What about their rights to organize in labor unions to demand and strike for better conditions? How about their personal right to freedom of worship? Is there slavery on the Arab side of the Persian Gulf? Yes, let all those issues be taken up in a genuine debate at the Oxford Uniion.
Maybe an authentic latter-day Trotskyist saint, a specialist in the class struggle perhaps, could defend the position that only a right-wing Zionist ape or pig could possibly worry about the foreign workers in Kuwait or Qatar or Ras al-Khaima. Maybe the class struggle in the utterly impoverished Gulf emirates [super rich sultanates??] will have to wait for a final solution of the Jewish Problem.
Excellent suggestion Eliyahu, albeit one that induces a type of dark, ironic laughter since the moment one considers such an idea a correspondingly immediate realization takes place, i.e. the realization that any theme beyond one that is anti-Israel (either overtly, more suggestively or more subtly still, as the constant substrate of virtually all M.E. oriented debates wherein the Arab and Persian Muslim malpractices receive little or no comment and the Israeli presence receives a constant acknowledgement or even a hyper-critique).
For example, imagine, here in the U.S., someone like a Judy Woodruff giving Arab potentates a thoroughgoing, even trenchant critique on PBS. Or differently, CNN or the BBC. When hades freezes over - if then.
Ron,
Mind you, the same can be said of the "Progressive" groups and organizations. Even the avowed anti-Zionists on Daily Kos often say, "We think Israel is heading toward the abyss and we're trying to save it".
It goes to show you that the debate about intent and sincerity is misplaced--feelings are not amenable to intellectual discussion. The real focus should be on truth vs. falsehood. I don't care if the "progressives" say they're for Israel; what I say is that their belief that the security of Israel lies in negotiations and concessions and treaties is wrong. Wrong, as in, "false", "not in accordance with the facts on the ground", "disjoint from reality", et cetera, et cetera.
"negotiations and concessions" with Islamofascists will work as well as it did with the Turd Reich.