Norm, Ted, Michel, and Ghada at the Oxford Union

My blogger friend Richard Silverstein once advised me to stick with a story. So since I wrote on Norman Finkelstein at the Oxford Union last Fall -- his invitation, his disinvitation (which I called "disinvitement"), and his reinvitation, I thought I would report to my readers about his appearance there last Thursday night.

The only problem is that I don't live in Oxford, and as far I know, there is no podcast of the event. And even were I to attend Oxford, wouldn't I be morally bound to heed the advice of the anonymous "Zionist Federation official" who was quoted in the Jerusalem Post as having said, "All Oxford students with sense should stay away from this farce."

Oh, I forgot to mention that the "farce" was the debate, "This House believes that the State of Israel has a right to exist." Arguing in favor were Norman Finkelstein and Ted Honderich, a prominent British philosopher who has argued that Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians are morally justifiable. Arguing against were to have been Ghada Karmi and Ilan Pappe, but the latter bowed out and was replaced by Michel Massih, a Palestinian barrister.

Of course, where there is Norman Finkelstein, there must be his Inspector Javert -- I mean, Dershowitz -- hounding him. And Alan, true to form, expressed his moral outrage in his blog

But back to our story. My Zionists readers will be pleased to know that even with the odds stacked against Israel, the proposition carried the day. Apparently, the Zionist Federation official's advice was heeded. Still, there are some liberal Zionist students at Oxford with abundant sense who attended, preferring engagement rather than boycott. One such student sent me the following report of the evening.

The debating chamber was almost full, but not as crowded as I thought it would be. In the end Ilan Pappe could not come - some university obligations I was told. In his place was a Palestinian barrister, called Michel Massih. The Union always opens its debates with student speakers. For Israel's existence, the opening student speaker was Jessica Prince, a very good Canadian debater. The Opposition student debater was called Lewis Turner - a prize winning debater.

Before any debate begins, the Union President (currently Emily Partingdon) always asks the Audience seomthing like 'does any honourable member wish to raise any business with me'. So I did, and gave a short speech based (I wasn't looking at the page as I made it so it might have been slightly different) on the text below:

"Thank you Madam President. I have a question for you which I know I am asking on behalf of many students, who like me, are absolutely baffled and disappointed by the bizarre choice of Norman Finkelstein and Ted Honderich to be the guest speakers proposing tonights motion: ‘this house supports the right of Israel to exist’.

"Both men have supported the actions of terrorist organisations intent on the destruction of Israel. Norman Finkelstein has described Hezbollah as ‘representing the hope’, while Ted Honderich has written that the use of terrorism against Israeli civilians is morally justifiable. What's more, Finkelstein has stated that (and I quote): "No, I do not support a two-state solution. I don't support states. I remain an old-fashioned communist. I see no value whatsoever in states" - and doesn't make him the most obvious candidate for tonights debate!"

"The two speakers are certainly not representative of the views of mainstream supporters of Israel’s existence, and the fact that they have been invited to, in effect, speak on our behalf, and make the case for Israel’s existence, is peculiar, and frankly insulting. That said, I do hope that both men will do what they were invited to do, and offer compelling and convincing reasons for Israel's existence.

"But to come to my question - If the Oxford Union were to invite two right-wing Zionists - say Melanie Philips and Ariel Sharon on life support - to speak for the motion ‘This House supports the existence of a Palestinian State’, then such a debate would be rightly denounced as a farce. With far left detractors of Israel making the case for its right to exist, Madam President, is tonight's debate any different?"

She answered by saying that the speakers are not representing anyone's views but their own, and that she has been having discussions with me, and that she is open to be e.mailed if anyone has any problems at any time. Immediately after she said that, someone else stood up to bring up business with her, explaining that he HAD e.maled her on this issue and had not received an reply for a week. She claimed that she invited him to a meeting, which he didn't bother coming to - he responded by saying that if she bothered to read his e.mail, she'd know that he couldn't come to it, and that she hadn't bothered to replly. In any case, what I said got a clap.

Then the debate started. Jessica began with something of a caveat, reiterating wht I had said about the Finkelstein and Honderich, and pointing out how peculiar it was that they were on her side. She got a laugh. She continued by saying that it was important to be clear on what is and what is not being debated. We are not, she explained, debating the occupation or any other Israeli policy. We are not debating what occured in 1948, and we are not debating the exact borders of the state. We are simply debating the existence of a Jewish state. She then stressed the usual points - the right to national self determination; the history of Jewish persecution; it's a democracy; the fact that no one debates the existence of Syria or saudi Arabia etc, so why always Israel?

Lewis Turner than came back by saying that you cannot divorce Israel from its racist policies. Because Israel is a zionist state, and Zionism is a necessarily racist ideology. (Law of return, demographic fears etc). Whereas, he said, if Saudi Arabia stopped persecuting homosexuals, it would remain Saudi Arabia, if Israel stopped haveing its racist law of return, it would cease to be Israel. This was the thrust of his talk.

Then, Finkelstein. He explained that the notion of an abstract right to a state is irrelevent, and meaningless; therefore what he believed on that matter is 'totally besides the point'. What matters, he explained, was that there is tremendous suffering in the area, and we had to examine the best way to end and deal with that suffering. Which was, he argued, an Israel and a Palestine. I think what he was trying to say was that if you pursue a one state solution, you risk leaving the Palestinians in the state of suffering that they are in for a far longer period of time. He several times stressed the point that 'this [ how to end their suffering] is real' and 'this is serious'. He then spoke briefly on the legal right for Israel to exist. It boiled down to: The UN said it exists, therefore it does. He also raised the question of why the two state solution hasn't happened, and blamed America and it's tiny allies like Micronesia for blocking votes in the UN. I have to say, while he didn't really speak for the motion, explaining Israel's right to exist, or rebutting the other sides argument (which is what is expected in a debate...) he wasn't as bad as I thought he would be. He also spoke vry quietly, and I'm told people at the back struggled to hear him.

In accordance with Union custom, speakers from the floor were then invited to give 2 minute speeches. The first for Israel, wearing a Palestinian and an Israeli flag around him, urged the audience to consider the implications of saying Israel should not exist - a one state solution, he argued, is a prelude to more fighting, more tensions, and potentially civil war. He then said the usual about why not ask about other countries...

The next student, speaking against Israel, accused the 'man in the flags' of being a racist. He said that one shouldn't fear the multiculturalism of a one state solution. He then said that Israel is not a democracy, because its democracy was based on having so much immigration so as to make the interests of one group marginal.

An Israeli law student then spoke. He stressed the link between Israel and the Jews throughout history - our prayers, our literature, the archeology etc.

The final speaker was a Palestinian student, who argued that Israel had neither a legal nor a moral right to exist. No legal right, because it was breaking resolution 183 [194?], and no moral right, because it had ethnically cleansed the Palestinians in 48.

Then Massih spoke. He focused on the law of return, stating that is racist, and giving a personal anecdote about how at Ben Gurion airport, he wasn't allowed back into Israel with his family when he wanted to go to Jerusalem, where he was born. He was very funny and charismatic, but had a slightly condescending and aggressive side to him as well - when a friend of mine made a point of information, to ask why, if he believes that bad policies deny a state its right to exist, he isn't concerned with the unnaceptable laws of Saudi Arabia etc, Massih pointed at him and asked 'Are you a Jew?' 'Why does that matter?', my friend replied. He went on 'Are you a Jew? Tell me, are you a Jew?' The audience was quite surprised, and I think one or two people may have mumbled shame at this point. My friend then said, 'Yes I am a Jew, but why does that matter?' and Massih replied 'Because you can go back and I cant, even though I was born there'.

Then Honderich spoke. He (somehow) managed to speak for 8 minutes wihtout talking about Israel once. Given that speakers are gven only 10 minutes overall, this was quite a problem. During those 8 minutes he tried to outline some philosophical principles - democracy, rights. But he wasn't particularly clear, and people after the debate joked about wanting to go to sleep during his talk. Someone said they thought his tatic was to bore us into submission. In any case. In the 7th minute I stood up to make a point of information. I was going to ask him to kindly finish his philophy lecture and do what he was invited to do, and explain why Israel should exist. He wouldn't take my point though. Had I thought more carefully, I would have made a point of order, and asked the President to please remind Honderich to stick to the conventions of a debate and actually debate. In any case. In the final two minutes (after the Union secretary had notified him he had only 2 minutes left) Honderich rushed through an explanation of the distinction between zionism and neo zionism. Zionism is legitimate he said - Jews have a right to national self determination, especially given their history. Neo-zionism - the settlements etc, is immoral. He concluded by saying that he supports the right of Palestinians to use terror against Israelis in historic Palestine. This statement was received with heckles of 'shame'.

Ghada Karmi was the final speaker. She was tremendously unpleasant in my opinion. She began by stating that she is totally confused about why this debate is even happening, and about why it was chosen - its madness to think that Israel has a right to exist. Karmi then spoke about the current situation in Gaza without electricity, and about how brutal the occupation was in general. I tried to make a point of information, to say that I'm an Israeli and I hate the occupation but that the occupation is not a necessary part of Israel's existence and how dare she speak of it as though it is. Anyway, she wouldn't take a single point of information throughout her talk. At one point she made a slip and spoke of the Jews replacing the Palestinian state, to which about a dozen people stood up to say 'point of inforamtion', to point out that in fact there was no Palestinian state, and that she was being ahistorical. When talking about the occupation, she also said that the settlers have their own roads because they cannot bear to look at Arabs. A student made a point of order, and asked the President to tell Karmi to retract her racist statment that all settlers are themselves racists. Karmi then clarified her point - something like: 'I am saying that Israel is a racist state'. Another funny point was when she looked to Finkelstein and Honderich and said 'I respect what you said a lot - you should be on our side but...' At which point myself and several others shoulted 'we know!' and got a laugh. Karmi finished her talk by ridiculing the notion of a Jewish connection to Israel, by explaining that the Jews were once canaanites, who then became Jews, many of whom then became Christians, and then became muslims. So all Palestinians are in fact the descendents of these canaanites, and have a stronger claim to the land than the Jews who left it. Karmi also likened the situation in Gaza to the Warsaw ghetto.

Phew. That's all, except to say that Honderich switched sides during Karmi's talk (there was a reason why but I cant remember it...) and that the vote went in Israel's favour, I am told, but only by 158 to 132. A friend of mine claimed to have seen Finkelstein walk out through the 'nay' door (against the motion)...but I'm treating "that claim" with a pinch of salt.

From the above it seems to me that the speakers didn't really speak to the question, either for or against; instead, they reverted to the one-state vs. two-state question, which had been the topic of the Fall debate. And that was as I predicted.

As for the question of Israel's "right to exist"....that is the subject for another post. Stay tuned.

Norman Finkelstein at the Oxford Union -- Round Two

When Norm Finkelstein was disinvited from appearing at the Oxford Union last term, the then president, Luke Tyrell, said that he would be invited back. I wrote about it, and then it was picked up by Tikun Olam and Muzzlewatch.

Well, he will be back all right. Although this time he will be debating the question: "The House Believes that the State of Israel Has a Right to Exist." Read about it here.

And, needless to say, he will be arguing for, not against, the proposition.

Finkelstein's partner will be Ten Honderich, a prominent British philosopher (who has written a good deal about the free will problem) But he is best known as a leftwing philosopher who has taken stands that make the average liberal philosopher queasy. From Wikipedia:

His Humanity, Terrorism, Terrorist War: Palestine, 9/11, Iraq, 7/7...justifies and defends Zionism, defined as the creation of Israel in its original borders, but also reaffirms that Palestinians have had a moral right to their liberation -- to terrorism within historic Palestine against what Honderich calls the ethnic cleansing of Neo-Zionism, the expansion of Israel beyond its original borders.

Against the proposition will be Ilan Pappe and Ghada Karmi. Both had been scheduled to argue in favor of the One-State solution last year. But they and Avi Shlaim walked out when Finkelstein was disinvited.

This debate looks virtually the same as the one that caused the brouhaha last term. If you believe in Israel's right to exist, you are a two-stater; if you don't, you are a one-stater.

So will Alan Dershowitz get involved? Will the Brit liberal Zionists go ballistic again?

May I suggest that the proper Zionist response is not to claim that Finkelstein and Honderich are being disingenuous. In fact, they both are in favor of recognizing the State of Israel within its 67 borders. The proper Zionist response is to claim that a debate betweeen leftwing advocates of Israel and leftwing detractors, leaves out the Zionists, and that is unfortunate. After all, it seems odd that no Zionists are on the program.

Odd, yes; unfair, no. If Zionists are not invited to this one, let them sit it out. Maybe they should ask for the following debate: ""The House Believes that the Palestinians have a Right to a State." The Zionist left will argue in favor; the Zionist right against. That would be a nice attempt to balance.

Stay tuned for more...

Oxford Union Brouhaha -- Post Mortem

Having corresponded with some of the people involved -- but not with the Oxford Union president, Luke Tryl -- and having read some of the accounts, this is my current take on the disinvitement of Finkelstein and its implications.

Luke Tryl, by his own admission, on three separate occasions, concedes that he felt under pressure from Alan Dershowitz and other groups for his decision to invite Norman Finkelstein to speak on behalf of the two-state solution. However, he claimed explicitly, both at the Oxford Union, and in an email to Avi Shlaim (the contents of which were discussed by Shlaim in a letter to the Jerusalem Post), that this pressure was not the decisive factor in his disinviting Finkelstein, i.e., that he did not cave in under pressure.

I am not interested in the psychology of Tryl. Needless to say, it is not in his interest to appear as somebody who caves in under pressure; better to say that he came to the conclusion that the initial decision was a mistake. But self-interest or not, the latter scenario may be the truth.

Paul Usiskin's group,UK Peace Now, initially appeared to take the credit (at least by implication in one of their news releases) for convincing Tryl; they then backed off when they saw the negative reaction. I am inclined to believe, with Shlaim, that they initially exaggerated their role. Still, after an email exchange with Usiskin, I take back my accusation that he has gone over to the neocons. It still may be worth distinguishing neocons from liberal Zionists. Paul's heart on several issues is in the right place. I just wish that his group continues to look for allies on his left and not merely on his right.

The most believable person with whom I corresponded is one of the pro-Israel students in the Oxford Union who approached Tryl and complained about Finkelstein's invitation. He was willing to concede that there was external pressure on Tryl, but that this was not, in his opinion, the reason for Tryl backing down.

Finally, there is the question of Lord Trimble's role. Trimble bowed out, he said, due to diary pressure. Jonathan Hoffman of Engage claimed that he refused to appear on the same panel with Finkelstein, and this was the decisive factor. Hoffman is inclined to accept the statements by Tryl that fit his views, and to dismiss those that do not.

As I wrote earlier, the culprit here appears to be Tryl. He owes Finkelstein an apology for disinviting him, for offering multiple explanations of the disinvitement, and for misrepresenting Finkelstein's position. I agree that the debate with the original panelists was flawed, and that it did not include all voices -- e.g., the position of Meron Benveniste, a Zionist who is a one-stater, or rightwing Israelis who are one-staters, or Jewish Zionists who are two-staters.

Was there censorship here? The purpose of the pro-Israel crowd was NOT to censor Finkelstein, or to prevent him from appearing at Oxford. Rather, it was to dictate under what rubric Finkelstein can appear; The Finkelstein they wish to portray -- an extreme, self-hating Jewish holocaust-devaluing supporter of Palestine -- can and should appear for what he "really" is, they say. But the real Finkelstein -- a moderate, if somewhat abrasive, scholars who supports a two-state solution because it is the international consensus -- cannot be allowed to appear. And why? Because it shatters the mythic worldview of his opponents, who to this hour simply cannot believe that Finkelstein favors a two-state solution, or that he is not an extremist.

It is very important for that crowd to marginalize Finkelstein as an extremist, and to portray themselves as centrists.

This reminds me of Alan Dershowitz's claim that he was not trying to silence Finkelstein when he tried to convince the University of California Press not to publish the book. Dershowitz claimed that he had no problem seeing the book published by an ideological, left wing house like Verso or Seven Stories. He simply did not want a mainstream academic publishing house publish the book, lest Finkelstein be taken seriously as a scholar. Apparently, he did not want the intense criticism of Israel to be associated with anybody besides the "anti-semites" and the "loonies of the left," two categories to which the real Finkelstein does not belong.

Once again, I can understand why the Zionists were upset with the choice, and they certainly had a right to express their opinion. But disinvitement at such a late date was scandalous.

Censorship is not only about silencing the Other. It is about retaining the power to determine how the Other will be perceived.

What Finkelstein Would Have Said at the Oxford Union

I know I am flogging a dead horse. But Norman Finkelstein's invitation to speak at the Oxford Union in favor of the two-state solution caused an uproar among the supporters of Israel because they assumed he was opposed to the two-state solution. Since his writings do not contain a sustained argument on the question of the final status, the only decent thing to do would be to assume that he would not "throw" the debate, and then to ask him to clarify his position. Luke Tyrell alludes to having done just that when he wrote Finkelstein

"Many people expressed concern that the debate as it stood was imbalanced and people felt that as someone who had apparently expressed anti-zionist sentiments that you might not be appropriate for this debate. I tried to convince them otherwise but was accused of putting forward an imbalanced debate and various groups put pressure on me. "

So...what would Finkelstein have said? I asked him, and this is what he wrote:

"I would have argued it as a purely pragmatic issue, with Palestinians having the final say on whether they accept the settlement insofar as on the basis of international law all the concessions would be coming from their side. I didn't prepare anything because Tryl never got back to me. I had no idea what was going on."

On Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, Finkelstein said:

Since the mid-1970s, there's been an international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Most of your listeners will be familiar with it. It's called a two-state settlement, and a two-state settlement is pretty straightforward, uncomplicated. Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, it's inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. That's the international consensus.

It's not complicated. It's also not controversial. You see it voted on every year in the United Nations. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side

This would not have been to the liking of the pro-Israel crowd. Finkelstein would have argued for the two-state solution, and at the same would have argued that Israel's policies have thwarted the two-state solution.

Which is what I argued in my previous post...

How the Israel Lobby Works -- Finkelstein and the Oxford Union

So what's the big deal? Alan Dershowitz did not threaten to sue the Oxford Union, or its president, Luke Tryl, if Norman Finkelstein was invited to speak in favor of the two-state solution. He did not threaten to break Tryl's legs, or to try to cancel funding, or to take him to court. All he did was threaten to write an op-ed against the Oxford Union (which he later did here). And why? Because it seemed absurd to him that a noted anti-Zionist like Finkelstein would argue in favor of the Jewish state. (That is not what the debate was about, but facts don't bother Dershowitz.) Facing Finkelstein would be three speakers who want to destroy the Jewish state, Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, and Ghada Karmi. So how can you invite an "anti-semite" (Dershowitz's words) like Finkelstein to support the Jewish state. What a leftwing farce!

So Alan Dershowitz, exercising his right to free speech, wrote an op-ed and attacked the Union. Other groups also exerted pressure. And the Union, or more precisely, its president, Luke Tryl, caved in under the pressure. This is from what Tryl wrote to Finkelstein in email dated October 17

Dear Dr Finkelstein,

...Many people expressed concern that the debate as it stood was imbalanced and people felt that as someone who had apparently expressed anti-zionist sentiments that you might not be appropriate for this debate. I tried to convince them otherwise but was accused of putting forward an imbalanced debate and various groups put pressure on me. I received numerous emails attacking the debate and Alan Dershowitz threatened to write an Oped attacking the Union. What is more he apparently attacked me personally in a televised lecture to Yale.

I hope that you understand my position, this is not ideal and I would be happy to welcome you as an individual speaker to the Union in a forthcoming term. I know that the President-Elect Emily Partington would be keen to host you in Hilary. I just did not want to see the debate compromised and given the Irving Griffin Controversy I couldn't fight a battle on all fronts.

Best wishes

Luke.

So, who's to blame? Well, in my opinion, the blame falls pretty squarely on Tryl. Dershowitz was Dershowitz -- a pit bull that misrepresented the debate (it was not a debate about the legitimacy of Zionism), Finkelstein, and the Union. But because of an unflattering op-ed in FrontPage and the Jerusalem Post, you disinvite a speaker?

As if that weren't enough, when the debate was held -- with most of the players changed -- the Union did not repeat to the audience what Tryl had written to Finkelstein. Instead, they said that they had mistakenly invited Finkelstein, not knowing what his views were, or something to that effect.

That's how it works. Either you hang tough or you don't. Tryl folded.

Clearly, Dershowitz and UK Peace Now's Usiskin thought it was more important to get Finkelstein off the panel -- because they simply are incapable of understanding how an anti-Zionist can favor a two-state solution -- then allow the invitation to get through.

I gave up on Dershowitz a long time ago. Apparently UK Peace Now has gone over to the neocons as well.

Time to give up on the Oxford Union.

It's High Noon all over again.

Disinviting Finkelstein to Speak at the Oxford Union

Last week I posted a statement about the academic boycott in which I said that I am not ready to support it. Well, I am still not ready, but I am one step closer after I read about the antics of UK Friends of Peace Now on jews sans frontieres. It turns out that one of the co-chairs of this organization, a Paul Usiskin (this according to the Jerusalem Post), pressured the Oxford Union to drop Norman Finkelstein from a debate on the one-state/two-state solution. You can read about it on Finkelstein's blog. People are accusing Alan Dershowitz of derailing the invitation to Finkelstein -- hardly surprising, if true -- but from what I read, Usiskin is the culprit.

Finkelstein has long been a proponent of the two-state solution, along with his intellectual pere, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky has been attacked by one-staters for that. As I have said before on this blog, Finkelstein's views on Israel are quite moderate -- he does not demand a dismantling of the Zionist regime, or a return of all the refugees, but merely an end to the occupation. He is no Zionist, and he thinks that the founding of the state in 1948 was a mistake. Big deal. The question was not "Do you support Zionism," but "Do you support a one- or a two-state solution?"

This is a question that is endlessly debated among the left, and it would have been a brilliant strategic coup to get a known critic of Israel to argue for two states. After all, many of us think that a one-state solution shafts the Palestinians because it fails to address the question of Palestinian national aspirations.

I have continually preached the importance of forging coalitions with the so-called Zionist left. I am a wimpy liberal -- I want to make a difference, and I know you have to cooperate. I am not expecting Friends of Peace Now to go out on a limb in favor of Norman Finkelstein. But if it is true that they helped derail the Oxford Union debate -- which would, admittedly, have involved a lot of Israel-bashing -- then they should be roundly condemned for it.

I hope somebody from there reads this blog and explains.