We offer peace and amity to all the neighbouring states and their peoples, and invite them to cooperate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all. The State of Israel is ready to contribute its full share to the peaceful progress and development of the Middle East. (From Proclamation of the State of Israel, 5 Iyar 5708; 14 May 1948)

Sunday, 3 February 2013

Amid Oxford's Dreaming Spires, Israel Seen By At Least Some As "A Force For Good In The Middle East"

 As Bibi Netanyahu said so eloquently and so stirringly a couple of years ago:
"In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel ... is different.... Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel's Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights.... Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East."
(I love that quotation so much that I have it, of course, on my sidebar.)

How very sad it is, that despite all of the humanitarian, medical, and technological breakthroughs Israel has achieved for the benefit of humankind as a whole, despite it being the first country in the Middle East to enfranchise Arab women, and despite its tolerance of homosexuals in contrast to so many of its neighbours, the motion that "Israel is a Force for Good in the Middle East" was lost in a debate at the Oxford Union last week.

The drip drip drip of media bias and other propaganda has again wrought its mischievous work.

Declares Oxford graduate Jonathan Hoffman of the results of the debate at the Oxford Union:
 "It’s well nigh impossible to win an Israel debate at a British University, so to achieve nearly 40 per entof the vote is a great achievement."
And as one of the most doughty, combative, and energetic of Israel's champions in the United Kingdom,  he's in a position to know.

His illuminating account of the debate, dated 1 February, is cross-posted below from the JCBlogs.

Writes Jonathan Hoffman:

'The motion "This House Believes That Israel is a Force For Good in the Middle East" was defeated 132-208 at the Oxford Union Debating Society last night. It was a good debate with none of the drama that has preceded some other Israel debates at the Union. For example in 2007 most of the external speakers pulled out after Norman Finkelstein was disinvited (the motion was "This House Believes that One State is the Only Solution to the Israel Palestine Conflict" and Finkelstein bizarrely was invited to speak against the motion). It was clear from the quality of the debate that a lot of hard work had gone into the evening by Union President Maria Rioumine [for whom see here] and her colleagues.

For the motion were Ella Robertson, a student at Balliol; Alan Mendoza (Director, Henry Jackson Society, replacing Stephen Pollard [editor of the Jewish Chronicle] at very short notice), Richard Perle (Assistant Secretary of Defence under President Reagan), and Lord [David] Trimble (Co-founder of Friends of Israel Initiative and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for helping secure peace in Northern Ireland).


Against were Ghada Karmi, Baroness Jenny Tonge, Anna Baltzer (a pro-Palestinian campaigner in the US), and [gay rights campaigner] Peter Tatchell.

It’s well nigh impossible to win an Israel debate at a British University so to achieve nearly 40 per ceent of the vote is a great achievement. And the speakers for the motion were good.

Ella Robertson spoke about Israel’s contribution to stability in the region, to democracy and liberalism and to the economy of the Middle East.

Alan Mendoza pointed out that Israel produces weapons of peace – for example, Iron Dome, which was possibly the main reason why the Israeli government did not feel obliged to commit ground forces in Operation Pillar of Defence last year. He contrasted Israel’s liberalism with Gaza where students have recently been forced to wear Islamic dress.

Richard Perle suggested that the criticism from the opposition speakers was not criticism of Israel per se but criticism of Israel’s right to defend itself. Israel’s non-aggressive nuclear policy was proved by the fact that Saudi Arabia and Egypt would want a nuclear capability if Iran had one but they have never wanted one to counter Israel’s assumed nuclear capability.


Lord Trimble spoke of his own experience on the Turkel Committee. Cabinet papers had been made available to the Committee and moreover he had seen that all orders placed with Israeli coordinators by merchants in Gaza had been fulfilled. He said that Palestinian negotiators had failed even to respond to Olmert’s peace offer. If Israel was genuinely bent on enlarging its territory – as the opposition claimed – then it would have annexed Judea and Samaria years ago. When asked if they wanted to join a Palestinian State, Israeli Arabs expressed an overwhelming desire to stay in Israel.

From the opponents of the Motion came the usual fallacies:

From Ghada Karmi
-that the Haganah terrorised Arabs into fleeing in 1948 (wrong – as Efraim Karsh has shown, the majority of the Arab refugees did not flee in response to Jewish forces – the Mayor of Haifa even pleaded with them to stay);
-that Israel has ‘caused four wars’!;
-that Israel takes 80% of the water of Judea and Samaria – not true;
From a remarkably restrained Jenny Tonge
-that Islamic extremism is caused by Israel; nonsense, the Muslim Brotherhood – the first extremist organisation – was founded in 1930
Peter Tatchell showed three maps which purported to show that Israel had ‘grabbed land’ but in fact showed that Israel had successfully defended itself three times and had successively moved into more defensible areas. And he said 'Jews deserve a homeland but not at the expense of the indigenous people' – but the fact is that Jews are an 'indigenous people' with practically unbroken presence near Jerusalem for thousands of years.

From Anna Baltzer we got the ‘apartheid’ comparison – she cited some South African Commission which concluded that Israel practises so-called ‘apartheid’. This of course is The Big Lie – otherwise why would most Israeli Arabs say that they would prefer to live in Israel than in a Palestinian State?

Omar Shweiki, a Palestinian, also spoke with passion against the motion from the floor.

Unfortunately there is not time in these debates to unpick some of the falsehoods. It is that – plus media bias plus the naïve perception of the Palestinians as ‘underdogs – which make motions like these so hard to win, however good the pro-Israel speakers. [Emphasis added here and below]


But to get nearly 40 per cent support for Israel at a British university in this day and age is a triumph."

6 comments:

  1. This is good
    Non-Jewish New Orleans University Sophomore Creates “Allies for Israel”
    http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/02/01/non-jewish-new-orleans-university-sophomore-creates-%E2%80%9Callies-for-israel-video/

    ReplyDelete
  2. I disagree that 40% is a triumph. To me, that is like saying that a less than majority for democracy, freedom and human rights in a British University is a triumph. It is a dismal failure for the UK and for the world. Especially since the opposing side offered nothing but the usual litany of lies, slander and anti-Semitism - um, excuse me, anti-Zionism. While 40% support is not a complete loss, it is 50% below what a modern, democratic institution of higher learning should vote.

    Thank you for starting with Bibi's quote. I feel so fortunate that he remains our leader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree too, but it seems that in the current climate we have to be content with such unsatisfactory figures. Pathetic, really.

      Delete
  3. Forgot to say .. mazal tov on the MUCH deserved Hasby!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aw, shucks - thanks, J. And thanks for your visits to my blog.

      Delete