Does the pro-Israel lobby stifle debate?
Someone sent me the link to this video, which makes interesting viewing, on the above question. Part of the ‘Doha Debates’, this was held at the Oxford Union, featuring writer Norman Finkelstein, writer Andrew Cockburn, David Aaranovitch (The Times) and Dr Martin Indyk (from AIPAC).
If you’re going to discuss it, please watch the video first.
| Post to del.icio.us |
Filed in: Media, Middle East
And Finkelstein wonders why he hasn’t got his own chat show>
Does anyone actually believe the Israel debate isnt all over everywhere all the time?
Good debate. Definitely worth watching.
I stopped listening after 31 minutes because I was bored.
I thought the quality of the debate was extremely disappointing. Neither side made their case.
Dr. Finklestein came across as a self-server. This is is his hobby-horse. I felt that he could have chosen anything, as long as he got his name in lights, but for some reason he chose I/P. Perhaps it’s his way of avoiding being called a dirty kike. Having watched him, I am convinced that the reason he doesn’t have tenure is not his views, but probably because he’s a crashing, humourless bore in the Common Room.
Andrew Cockburn sees Jews under the bed, all intent on doing the white man down. He’s a lightweight.
As is Dr. Indyk. How on earth was this man ever appointed as an ambassador to anywhere. He couldn’t debate his way out of a paper bag.
David Aaronovitch (of Jewish descent and Jew-ish rather than Jewish) was the best speaker, and the only one who made relevant points. But he didn’t convince me either.
The best points were made by the adjudicator for both sides.
He won.
Thanks for the overview aunty-ji. Saves me from watching it.
And the results from the debate? Overwhelming majority believe that the Pro-Israeli Lobby does stifle free speech.
Sunny, are you sure someone sent you the link or did you see it on the MPACUK website?
Good to see Sunny finally allowing his blog to have an open debate (to an extent) on the Pro-Israeli Lobby.
You missed this one though http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2894821400057137878&q=israel+lobby maybe you could place this on your blog?
Sid
I think you should watch it.
Chairwoman, being boring might switch people off but it does not take away from what might be said.
I had hoped to hear more from Finkelstein than Cockburn.
With regards Aranovitch, I thought he did his best to brow-beat.
I was amazed at his point that the boycott (regardless of the merits) of academics was overturned not by the influence of lobbying but by a democratic vote. But as far as I know the whole Engage thing was established to do precisely that – get the vote overturned. Not at the next conference but with the utmost haste.
The vote was very clear-cut.
As for the Ambassador, well surely there is a problem with having a leading light of AIPAC represent the US in Israel.
But the most telling point was made from the floor, that Israel is very good at what it does. So what’s the problem.
That’s me paraphrasing of course.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, Finkelstein is one of my all time heroes and this is the kind of thread I’d love to contribute to, but I’m too farkin busy!
Indeed although I did wonder about the composition of the audience and whether that had any bearing on the outcome of the vote.
Indeed although I did wonder about the composition of the audience and whether that had any bearing on the outcome of the vote.
I knew someone would come out with that. Yeah, damn the BBC for filling the audience with anti-semitic, anti-Israel plunkers!
Refresh
How can I possibly take seriously a pair called Finkelstein and Cockburn?
And as for Aaranovitch – he makes me hurl.
Desi – leave it out. We are having a discussion here.
Leon,
“Indeed although I did wonder about the composition of the audience and whether that had any bearing on the outcome of the vote.”
I can’t actually respond to that other than to say that the vote was very clear cut for that audience.
Sid,
Perhaps if Cockburn spelt his name as Coburn, he’d get to a wider audience. As for Finkelstein, I quite like that name. Sounds professorial.
I like Aaronavitch. Not so his fundamentals.
Desi Muslim – I don’t think that the BBC had anything to do with the audience, and also I had read the results of the debate last week, and it was far closer than you seem to believe.
Refresh – You’ve put the cart before the horse. Ambassador first, AIPAC second. As for Finklestein, you agree with him because he supports your personal prejudice, and I suspect that I don’t, because he doesn’t support mine, but all that aside, he’s a what my mother would have called ‘a cold fish’. I trust and respect you despite our disagreement over I/P, because you’re a warm person with a sense of humour. A person devoid of warmth and humour can never be trusted, no matter what his politics are. I repeat what I said, that man’s only real interest is his own importance, and the sound of his own dull voice pontificating.
Funny enough I as I clicked submit I realised someone would react in the way you have…
Anyway, Refresh has a view I’d agree with hence my comment. The vote shouldn’t be taken to mean anything beyond the audience because it’s not representative of anything other than the audience so can’t be used to compliment the position put forward in the motion they were debating…
Wise words indeed.
Chairwoman,
“with a sense of humour.” I like that.
But I have to disagree with you on one crucial point:
“despite our disagreement over I/P”
we do not have a disagreement. We are 100% agreed.
Leon
“The vote shouldn’t be taken to mean anything beyond the audience because it’s not representative of anything other than the audience so can’t be used to compliment the position put forward in the motion they were debating…”
That obviously depends how the audience is selected. Fair to say both sides of the argument would have attempted to get their supporters into the chamber.
But what can be said with certainty is that the motion was carried.
But then this is all a diversion.
So on the substantive – where do you stand?
Coburn? Yeah right. And that’s David Aarsache.
Chairwoman, I am intrigued. Can you send a link to where you read about the debate? Something odd is going on here – just want to check out a hunch.
Sid, we are doing well. Not quite got passed their names. But we will.
I may be wrong but isn’t Cockburn pronounced Coburn in polite circles? Not PP of course.
I think it does although stifle perhaps is the wrong word, I think it does shape the contours of permissible debate within the mainstream media (we’re talking about the US here right? Even though it’s not perfect I don’t see that the UK is quite as bad).
I think I’ve said as much a few times on here. I have a reluctance these days with bothering with the whole I/P thing online because you can tell tone and useful things like facial expression better in real life.
Online, it saves time to just assume anyone talking about I/P is spitting with rage and/or drooling.
Refresh – It was in print. It could have been the Times, the Sunday Times or The Jewish Chronicle. Now I don’t know if you’re familiar with the JC, but it never misses an opportunity to report the wrong doings of Jews, nor to point out how unpopular we are, so please don’t go ‘Aha’
*mops mouth with tissues*
Online, it saves time to just assume anyone talking about I/P is spitting with rage and/or drooling.
ha ha! ain’t that the truth.
It seemed that the debate was mostly about the US, though Aaronovitch spoke mainly of the UK. Obviously, the motion applies more to the American case than to the British one–it would be fatuous to say that the lobby stifles debate in Britain when The Independent and the Guardian’s comment pages are about.
With regards to Finkelstein, Chairwoman is absolutely correct in characterising him as a giant crushing bore who is more interested first and foremost in self-promotion. When the adjudicator pointed out that Jimmy Carter’s book had sparked a lot of debate, Finkelstein seemed more concerned that the mainstream media didn’t want *his* opinion on things. That doesn’t equate to a stifling of debate.
Not really, quantity doesn’t necessarily mean quality. You can have a thousand column inches about something but if its virtually all reported or argued from within the same narrow parameters then using the term debate is a joke.
Also you’re examples are a little narrow, look at the circulation figures of those too publications then compare and contrast to the circulation of papers that most people read. Reflect on the perception/understanding of the situation that will be gained by those two distinct readerships…
I was going to say ‘Aha’ – but you beat me to it.
Not really.
My hunch was more to do with the media in general and journalists in particular.
With regards Finkelstein – either he has something to say which needs a response or he hasn’t.
I believe he has.
With regards Carter I think it was Finkelstein, who simply pointed out that Carter’s criticism of Israel was very tepid and look at how he is treated.
Well, the media always engages in self-censorship, whether in the United States or in Britain or in Saudi Arabia or Egypt. It’s just a matter of different taboos – the Muslim Brotherhood lot here, and thei friends, will never talk about Hamas’ cult of suicide bombing and the fact its more a political struggle over land than a religious one.
Finkelstein makes one good point though: that there seems to be far more consensus amongst politicians on what is the right path on I/P than the media and the ordinary people, and that he puts down to the influence of AIPAC there (which even the AIPAC guy admits).
The MPAC lot harp on about it every day like there is nothing else in life to talk about and that Muslims are not dying in other countries. I wonder in fact if they’ll post up a message today about the Pakistani suicide bomber who killed 24 Pakistanis in Peshawar with a suicide bomb. But no, only dead Palestinians, when killed by the IDF, are worth talking about.
So really, the question shouldn’t be whether debate is stifled. The question is whether AIPAC unduly influences US politicians towards a foreign policy that is unethical for all in the Middle East. My view is the answer to that is yes. But then, as the AIPAC guy points out, such is the US system. Rather than whining about it, US Muslims should get organised and fund their own lobbyists. It’s a free market, make use of it.
it would be fatuous to say that the lobby stifles debate in Britain when The Independent and the Guardian’s comment pages are about.
precisely, which is why my position (without seeing the video) is the following:
the pro-israel lobby does not *stifle* debate, but it does *polarise* it. so does the anti-israel, or pro-palestinian or whatever you call it lobby.
that means that instead of debate you more or less get get mel phillips vs george galloway, or robert fisk if you prefer, with galloway off on an entirely different scale of lunacy – i’m not a fan of fisk, but at least he has principles, even if i don’t agree with them. that’s why most of the I/P debate is so annoying and predictable.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Of course quantity doesn’t mean quality, but there is a fairly wide range of debate available on I/P in the British mainstream media. People may not be receptive to the debate (as we see on CIF where people have already made up their minds and by and large are not even willing to engage with contrasting viewpoints) but certainly it exists in a far healthier form than in the US media.
If you look at circulation figures it turns out that more people care about Richard Littlejohn, football, and breasts than Israel and Palestine.
I/P is boring, intractable and probably unresolveable. And the landscape of its ideas is peopled on both sides by those who know the other’s argument inside-out but are unwilling to budge a millimetre in approbation.
These entrenched positions, which are now currency in all manner of Western media channels, journals, publications, blogs etc are reinforced for us, the consumers of information, by obdurate “intellectual” tossers like writer Norman Finkelstein, writer Andrew Cockburn, David Aaranovitch (The Times) and Dr Martin Indyk (from AIPAC).
sid – I agree with 99% of what you say. The only thing I don’t agree with is that it’s unresolvable.
IMO if everybody left them alone, and gave them absolutely no publicity, I think they’d resolve it PDQ. Nature abhors a vaccuum.
“debate you more or less get get mel phillips vs george galloway, or robert fisk if you prefer, with galloway off on an entirely different scale of lunacy – i’m not a fan of fisk, but at least he has principles, even if i don’t agree with them”.
I am sure you meant to be nice about Robert Fisk but to put him in the same brackets with Mel Phillips and George Galloway is a little harsh. Fisk might be boring or predictable, but sadly protracted conflicts, like Northern Ireland, are boring, but with his awards for international journalism behing him, Fisk isn’t quite in the same league as those other personalities. He packs out lecture theatres these days – strange thing for a boring journalist. Though I tend to agree Guardian is predictable, stopped taking it seriously a long time ago.
I also think I/P is solvable – where there is a political will, there is a way.
Before anybody assumes that I’m Muslim, let me say that I’m an atheist.
Now, I’ve followed the course of Aaronvitch’s development for the last 10 odd years, and, I feel that he is just another apologist for the fascist/rightwing/Zionist Israelis abusing Palestinians.
Muhamad
“Before anybody assumes that I’m Muslim, let me say that I’m an atheist.”
Things really have sunk to a new low when you have to declare yourself an atheist (or in your case non-muslim?) before you feel you would be listened to.
Muhamad – But you’re a Muslim atheist
I like that, Chairwoman
34 – .you said it chairwoman auntie!
You’ve put the cart before the horse. Ambassador first, AIPAC second. As for Finklestein, you agree with him because he supports your personal prejudice, and I suspect that I don’t, because he doesn’t support mine, but all that aside, he’s a what my mother would have called ‘a cold fish’. I trust and respect you despite our disagreement over I/P, because you’re a warm person with a sense of humour. A person devoid of warmth and humour can never be trusted, no matter what his politics are. I repeat what I said, that man’s only real interest is his own importance, and the sound of his own dull voice pontificating.
Huh? Finkelstein is a cold fish? He has no sense of humour? WTF? Maybe on the debate (which I haven’t seen), but can you blame the guy after that piece of shit Dershowitz’s attempts to stop him getting tenure (which it is a fucking disgrace he doesn’t have).
But I did get to meet Finkelstein once and he certainly didn’t come across as a cold fish, in fact he came across as warm and very friendly. And how can you say he has no sense of humour? have you ever read anything he’s written …ever, have you seen his website? In fact I even emailed him once complementing him, among other things on his great sense of humour — which a lot of other lefties seem to lack– and he responded:
The anarchist Emma Goldman once said, “If I can’t dance, I don’t want your revolution.” I say: “If I can’t laugh I don’t want your revolution.”
The guy rocks, basically.
Goddam right I/P is solvable. The question is whether the solution is acceptable to the side that holds all the power.
if it isn’t, it isn’t a solution. nor is it workable if it can be undermined the power held by other powerbrokers, like iran, or the US, if you prefer.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Chairwoman, you’ve said it with such chutzpah that I feel I should agree with you or be damned like a Palestinian with no right of return.
Shalom aleichem.
if it isn’t, it isn’t a solution. nor is it workable if it can be undermined the power held by other powerbrokers, like iran, or the US, if you prefer.
Sorry, BB, you’re right, I should have said there is a solution under international law and the dictates of common sense morality. And comparing the US’ influence to Iran’s over I/P I must admit that’s a masterstroke!
i wouldn’t let it lie, would i?
sorry, anas, of course you’re right, obviously the dictates of common sense morality ought to apply to everybody. i’d differ on international law, though, because that is based on consensus and, where there is no consensus, there is no enforceable law.
i am curious though, someone pointed out to me that the population movements in eastern europe in the latter half of the twentieth century were orders of magnitude larger than they have been in the middle east, yet for some reason nobody is suggesting that that situation be reversed. should the germans of danzig return? should the ulyensk cossacks?
b’shalom
bananabrain
i’d differ on international law, though, because that is based on consensus and, where there is no consensus, there is no enforceable law.
Huh? Depends on what you mean by consensus: if a criminal doesn’t happen to agree with a particular law and can get away with it, does that nullify it? Sure it can’t be enforced but the principle is there.
The thing is that there are sets of laws and rules that almost all of the states of the world sign up to and that are commonly agreed upon as binding, such as when you occupy a territory during a war for some reason, you don’t then annex it and start to settle it with your own inhabitants. Just because you can get away with it, doesn’t mean that you somehow haven’t broken these guidelines — that’s just wishful thinking.
Anas have you abandoned your blog? Its off thread but i must ask.
Yeah, for the time being, ZZ, since my internet access is limited at the moment. I wanna give a revamp for the Summer anyway. More celebrity gossip, fashion and diet tips, less boring politics.
I wanna give *it* a revamp for the Summer anyway.