Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Diaz89)
    Lose Israel, 95% of Muslim extremism will disappear.
    i very much doubt it. what will all the extremists do once israel is destroyed? that kind of fanatic mindset can't exist without having some kind of target. it's no different to fascist countries - the only thing that holds them together is the percieved external threat.
    they're not just going to go home and put the kettle on. they'll just put more effort into attacking "the west".
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by borismor)
    Yes, there is no sense in that because they do talk against Israel all the time, otherwise how would I know about it?



    Who are the these people of the "Jewish Lobby"? Seeing that most American Jews are democratic liberals I'd really like to know.



    And of course they are all very objective and unbiased about it.



    I did. It's rubbish.
    If you watched the talk you'd know who the lobby is and as i said earlier, not all jews are part of the lobby. Maybe i should say the pro Israeli lobby, however in essense, you are just avoiding the issue.

    You seem to be one of the few who hears all of this criticism all the time.

    So all you can say is it's rubbish and imply they are lying. Even though there is quote after quote expressing the power of the israel lobby, some from the lobby leaders themselves. Add to this the example after example of people being stopped from speaking.

    Are you actually denying that the pro-Israel lobby has alot of influence, even though it was voted the 2nd most influential lobby? Are you actually denying the fact that politicians, journalists and to a certain extent academics are fearful of negatively talking about Israel?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Here's the oxford debate where the house voted that the actions of the pro-israel lobby has stifled debate.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...00635045440998
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    Here's the oxford debate where the house voted that the actions of the pro-israel lobby has stifled debate.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...00635045440998
    The same Oxford which invited Finkelstein as a representative of the pro-Israel community.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    The same Oxford which invited Finkelstein as a representative of the pro-Israel community.
    Watch the debate. Finkelstein talks in favour of the motion, which asserts that the pro-Israel lobby has stifled debate.

    I'm not sure what your point was, but it seems like you were trying to attack the credibility of Oxford in debates. Seems like a cheap tactic to devalue its findings.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    Watch the debate. Finkelstein talks in favour of the motion, which asserts that the pro-Israel lobby has stifled debate.

    I'm not sure what your point was, but it seems like you were trying to attack the credibility of Oxford in debates. Seems like a cheap tactic to devalue its findings.
    So if I show you a video of say... Binyamin Netanyahu arguing with Ariel Sharon over whether Israel should exist or not and they (of course) conclude it should, you would take this as decent evidence?

    Reductio ad absurdum before you say this is a bad example.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    So if I show you a video of say... Binyamin Netanyahu arguing with Ariel Sharon over whether Israel should exist or not and they (of course) conclude it should, you would take this as decent evidence?

    Reductio ad absurdum before you say this is a bad example.
    You made a comment suggesting Oxford wasn't a credible place to debate and seemed to imply that the debate should be discounted immediately for that reason. It seems as though you feel that your personal attacks on Oxford make the debate worthless. I disagree.

    Now It seems like you are suggesting that the side that opposed the motion, ie the side that felt the lobby was not stifling debate, were somehow Israel haters. This is ridiculous, one man worked for AIPAC one of the largest lobbies and the other defended the lobby to the hilt.

    Watch the debate.

    I am not presenting these things as evidence of anything, i am simply providing a link for people to watch them. They can decide for themselves what they believe, however i do believe that the evidence presented by the speaker, which can be verified online, is pretty compelling.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    You made a comment suggesting Oxford wasn't a credible place to debate and seemed to imply that the debate should be discounted immediately for that reason. It seems as though you feel that your personal attacks on Oxford make the debate worthless. I disagree.

    Now It seems like you are suggesting that the side that opposed the motion, ie the side that felt the lobby was not stifling debate, were somehow Israel haters. This is ridiculous, one man worked for AIPAC one of the largest lobbies and the other defended the lobby to the hilt.

    Watch the debate.

    I am not presenting these things as evidence of anything, i am simply providing a link for people to watch them. They can decide for themselves what they believe, however i do believe that the evidence presented by the speaker, which can be verified online, is pretty compelling.
    I'm referring to an altogether different debate, and frankly I don't particularly care if debate is stiffled... even though I would argue Israel is actually criticized copiously to the point it's criticism eclipses that given to Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Russia in Chechnya... hardly proportional. Either way 99% of anti-Israeli arguments are either based on ridiculous emotional pleas using overly emotive and inaccurate language(Apartheid, genocide, holocaust etc.) or are simply based on false assumptions.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeeWeeDan)
    I'm referring to an altogether different debate, and frankly I don't particularly care if debate is stiffled... even though I would argue Israel is actually criticized copiously to the point it's criticism eclipses that given to Sudan, Saudi Arabia or Russia in Chechnya... hardly proportional. Either way 99% of anti-Israeli arguments are either based on ridiculous emotional pleas using overly emotive and inaccurate language(Apartheid, genocide, holocaust etc.) or are simply based on false assumptions.
    So your comment wasn't even based on the debate posted. Did you not even look at it before you attempted to discredit it?

    I care if debate is stifled and if smear campaigns prevent people from giving their analysis. You are displaying an attitude which makes it all the more plausible that the lobby does actively attempt to stifle debate.

    If an injustice is reported using emotional pleas, does it suddenly cease to be an injustice? It's unsurprising that somebody who may have witnessed such injustice, will report it in emotional terms. Or that people who have a knowledge of apartheid, may point out the similarities.

    You may think you are right, infact you seem pretty closeminded, but you don't have the right to stifle debate. If someone is critical of Israel, they don't have to simultaneously be critical of every other country. It doesn't make them anti semitic or a self hating jew if they disagree with Israeli policy. The two terms used extensively to smear people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    So your comment wasn't even based on the debate posted. Did you not even look at it before you attempted to discredit it?

    I care if debate is stifled and if smear campaigns prevent people from giving their analysis. You are displaying an attitude which makes it all the more plausible that the lobby does actively attempt to stifle debate.

    If an injustice is reported using emotional pleas, does it suddenly cease to be an injustice? It's unsurprising that somebody who may have witnessed such injustice, will report it in emotional terms. Or that people who have a knowledge of apartheid, may point out the similarities.

    You may think you are right, infact you seem pretty closeminded, but you don't have the right to stifle debate. If someone is critical of Israel, they don't have to simultaneously be critical of every other country. It doesn't make them anti semitic or a self hating jew if they disagree with Israeli policy. The two terms used extensively to smear people.
    If you read what I said, you would see my statement that I think debate isn't even mildly sedated as Israel is actively condemned far more than much worse "offenders". And emotional arguments go straight into the trash... it's all about straight facts and logic. Anything else is superfluous to intelligent debate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    Are you actually denying that the pro-Israel lobby has alot of influence, even though it was voted the 2nd most influential lobby? Are you actually denying the fact that politicians, journalists and to a certain extent academics are fearful of negatively talking about Israel?
    What I'm denying is that people are afraid to talk against Israel,
    because de facto they do speak against Israel quite a lot.

    Now if you'll excuse me I need to make a phone call to the Jewish lobby and ask them to close this thread.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by borismor)
    What I'm denying is that people are afraid to talk against Israel,
    because de facto they do speak against Israel quite a lot.
    If Walt/Mearsheimer are having a few talks cancelled because of the topic then clearly something's not working as well as it should in public discourse. Do you agree with that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    If Walt/Mearsheimer are having a few talks cancelled because of the topic then clearly something's not working as well as it should in public discourse. Do you agree with that?


    Many critics of Israel's policies are world renowned. Cancelling a few talks is expected when your views are controvertial. Just like many pro-Israeli professors have a hard time these days.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Axes)
    Many critics of Israel's policies are world renowned. Cancelling a few talks is expected when your views are controvertial. Just like many pro-Israeli professors have a hard time these days.
    I wouldn't say that either side's views are controversial, though. Peter Singer is controversial; arguing that the US's policy towards Israel is detrimental to the interests of both countries is not in the same league. If pro-Israeli professors are having "a hard time" then that is depressing and problematic as well. The debate about US interests need not be an emotionally charged and controversial one where people are prevented from speaking. It can be, and should be, a measured, dispassionate discussion. If it isn't an open, sensible debate then the ability for the US to maximise its interests is compromised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    I wouldn't say that either side's views are controversial, though. Peter Singer is controversial; arguing that the US's policy towards Israel is detrimental to the interests of both countries is not in the same league. If pro-Israeli professors are having "a hard time" then that is depressing and problematic as well. The debate about US interests need not be an emotionally charged and controversial one where people are prevented from speaking. It can be, and should be, a measured, dispassionate discussion. If it isn't an open, sensible debate then the ability for the US to maximise its interests is compromised.


    I don't think people are 'prevented' from speaking. Simply, even in the most Liberal democracies, groups of people can 'chose' who they want to listen to, and which lecturer they want to go to. The fact that W&M are not accepted into certain lectures is not because of some "Jewish Lobby Sinister power".
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Axes)
    I don't think people are 'prevented' from speaking. Simply, even in the most Liberal democracies, groups of people can 'chose' who they want to listen to, and which lecturer they want to go to. The fact that W&M are not accepted into certain lectures is not because of some "Jewish Lobby Sinister power".
    Of course people can choose, but if they choose based on the chance of political backlash, or the "controversial" view of the speakers, rather than choosing based on the quality of the arguments presented, then there is a problem with the way that those groups (often ones dedicated to informing public discourse) are functioning. Those who cancelled didn't say that it was because they disagreed with what was being said; some cancelled because it was politically disadvantageous to have them speak. It is not uplifting to see that happen.

    (By the way, it's kinda obvious, but if you use straw men like "Jewish Lobby Sinister power" then you're unintentionally defending some of what Walt/Mearsheimer are saying.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    Of course people can choose, but if they choose based on the chance of political backlash, or the "controversial" view of the speakers, rather than choosing based on the quality of the arguments presented, then there is a problem with the way that those groups (often ones dedicated to informing public discourse) are functioning.


    Not really. People can chose which lecture they want to go to. I wouldnt go to W&M's lecture not because "im not Liberal minded", but simply because I believe them to be bigots. I have no problem going to listen to far more credible critics of Israel's policies.


    (By the way, it's kinda obvious, but if you use straw men like "Jewish Lobby Sinister power" then you're unintentionally defending some of what Walt/Mearsheimer are saying.)


    It's not a straw-man, because the whole point of this argument revolved around the "Jewish Lobby". Im simply bringing the argument back to context. And no, Im not defending (unintentionally) W&M. I am ridiculing it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    I wouldn't say that either side's views are controversial, though. Peter Singer is controversial; arguing that the US's policy towards Israel is detrimental to the interests of both countries is not in the same league. If pro-Israeli professors are having "a hard time" then that is depressing and problematic as well. The debate about US interests need not be an emotionally charged and controversial one where people are prevented from speaking. It can be, and should be, a measured, dispassionate discussion. If it isn't an open, sensible debate then the ability for the US to maximise its interests is compromised.
    With all due respect it is rather controversial to argue that Jews worldwide are abusing the Holocaust and exaggerating it to serve their own needs and to save Israel from any discrimination. It reeks of conspiracy theory.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Axes)
    Not really. People can chose which lecture they want to go to. I wouldnt go to W&M's lecture not because "im not Liberal minded", but simply because I believe them to be bigots. I have no problem going to listen to far more credible critics of Israel's policies.
    Their scheduled talks weren't cancelled because of a lack of interest; they were cancelled because they were considered too controversial and politically disadvantageous. I am arguing that it is sad to see organizations involved in public discourse prevent people from speaking based on the political implications of allowing someone to speak.

    It's not a straw-man, because the whole point of this argument revolved around the "Jewish Lobby". Im simply bringing the argument back to context. And no, Im not defending (unintentionally) W&M. I am ridiculing it.
    Nah, they talk about the Israel lobby rather than the Jewish lobby, and they say that it isn't sinister - they say it is simply defending its interests like all other lobby groups. They make that clear both in the book and the talk. In other words, rather than ridiculing them, you're making yourself look ridiculous by inaccurately portraying their position with a strawman that they make extremely clear that they disagree with. Of all the stupid things could do in a discussion about their book/talk, that must be one of the worst.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Their scheduled talks weren't cancelled because of a lack of interest; they were cancelled because they were considered too controversial and politically disadvantageous. I am arguing that it is sad to see organizations involved in public discourse prevent people from speaking based on the political implications of allowing someone to speak.


    They were cancelled by private individuals who did not agree with W&M's view's. How is it different than a less extreme example of cancelling a lecture from a KKK leader?



    Nah, they talk about the Israel lobby rather than the Jewish lobby, and they say that it isn't sinister - they say it is simply defending its interests like all other lobby groups. They make that clear both in the book and the talk. In other words, rather than ridiculing them, you're making yourself look ridiculous by inaccurately portraying their position with a strawman that they make extremely clear that they disagree with. Of all the stupid things could do in a discussion about their book/talk, that must be one of the worst.


    Im not inaccurately portraying their position. I've read their book, and they were good boys in being carefull to replace Jew with Zionist whenever they could, so their book will seem to not be narrow minded. If the book obsessive and irrationally hostile towards a certain group of people, if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Israel and systematically suppresses any exculpatory information -- then yes, the book is, at the very least, biggoted.


    But overall, its a shoddy piece of work, with half truths and sometimes outright lies. It received success because its controvertial, nothing more, and many of the historians W&M quoted have come out and criticised W&M's work, claiming they were grossly misquoted. To be honest, up untill now, I've been allmost gentle in my portrayal of "The Israel Lobby".
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,956

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.