Arguing against the claim that Israel never truly wanted peace with the Palestinians, I contended that the real debate was not about policy but about Israel's very soul
Now that the debate ‘has Israel ever wanted peace with the Palestinians’ has taken place, it would only be right, the reverse question be asked ‘have the Palestinians ever wanted peace with Israel ?’
I have said time, and time again .. before October 7, take Israel ‘geographically’ OUT of the Middle East. Look at the Arab world, for that gives a true picture of what a new Arab country would like. After all, there are I believe 21 Arab countries .. what would the 22nd look like ?
Which ever way you cut it, from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, across to Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, what does one see ? Nothing but dysfunctional nations, with infighting, civil war, corruption, Shia vs Sunni, royal families, autocrats and dictators. Not one Arab democracy. These countries are all tribal in one way or another.
The fact that these very talented pro Israel advocates consider it a victory that a whole 1/3 of the students agreed with their narrative only highlights the devastating effect of infection with the insidious antisemitism virus, which turns all working brain cells to mush.
My grandfather went to Oxford, so I have always associated the Union with the highest traditions of rigorous debate.
What saddens me most isn’t the vote. It’s the proposition itself.
To argue that Israel has never wanted peace is not merely to criticise particular governments or failed negotiations. It is to attribute a single, unchanging motive to generations of Israeli leaders and citizens despite abundant historical evidence of disagreement, compromise, negotiation and sacrifice.
Serious history is rarely served by absolutes. One can argue that peace efforts failed, that mistakes were made, or that opportunities were missed. But never is an extraordinarily difficult historical claim to defend.
Thank you, Avi, for responding with evidence rather than slogans.
I admire the calmness of your tone. When truth disappears from an argument, when one side can invent anything opposing verifiable facts, we are left not with an intellectual debate but with an ideology that is using pseudo-rational arguments.
A student body forfeits any claim to legitimacy if it proposes to clarify the inner motivations of a foreign government. “Israel never wanted peace with the Palestinians?” Pretentious and arrogant posturing, cod untrained psychoanalysis.
Now that the debate ‘has Israel ever wanted peace with the Palestinians’ has taken place, it would only be right, the reverse question be asked ‘have the Palestinians ever wanted peace with Israel ?’
I have said time, and time again .. before October 7, take Israel ‘geographically’ OUT of the Middle East. Look at the Arab world, for that gives a true picture of what a new Arab country would like. After all, there are I believe 21 Arab countries .. what would the 22nd look like ?
Which ever way you cut it, from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Sudan, across to Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria, what does one see ? Nothing but dysfunctional nations, with infighting, civil war, corruption, Shia vs Sunni, royal families, autocrats and dictators. Not one Arab democracy. These countries are all tribal in one way or another.
It was the wrong question. The issue is whether the Palestinians are capable of nation building. Everything else is downstream of this.
Was there a vote taken before this “disputation”?
Wouldn't a better question have been whether the Palestinians have ever wanted peace?
The fact that these very talented pro Israel advocates consider it a victory that a whole 1/3 of the students agreed with their narrative only highlights the devastating effect of infection with the insidious antisemitism virus, which turns all working brain cells to mush.
I appreciate you so much, and all you're doing!
My grandfather went to Oxford, so I have always associated the Union with the highest traditions of rigorous debate.
What saddens me most isn’t the vote. It’s the proposition itself.
To argue that Israel has never wanted peace is not merely to criticise particular governments or failed negotiations. It is to attribute a single, unchanging motive to generations of Israeli leaders and citizens despite abundant historical evidence of disagreement, compromise, negotiation and sacrifice.
Serious history is rarely served by absolutes. One can argue that peace efforts failed, that mistakes were made, or that opportunities were missed. But never is an extraordinarily difficult historical claim to defend.
Thank you, Avi, for responding with evidence rather than slogans.
I admire the calmness of your tone. When truth disappears from an argument, when one side can invent anything opposing verifiable facts, we are left not with an intellectual debate but with an ideology that is using pseudo-rational arguments.
A student body forfeits any claim to legitimacy if it proposes to clarify the inner motivations of a foreign government. “Israel never wanted peace with the Palestinians?” Pretentious and arrogant posturing, cod untrained psychoanalysis.