The issue to be debated is a great litmus test of sorts because it helps crystallize the disingenuousness of those who want israel to disappear and will obfuscate or lie in that quest. The speakers in favor of the resolution like so many who manned the college quads of America or marched in the streets of London( and elsewhere) and today win primaries in NEW YORK CITY itself have a desire for one thing only : no more israel and that of course means lots of dead jews .
Oxford is no.longer a revered English institution. It has bastardized itself as can be witnessed time after time in the Oxford Union. Of course England itself increasingly is a mere historic relic.
👏👏👏👏👏 the willful ignorance of these fools brings down the reputation of Oxford Uni. As Jesus said, "Love your neighbour." And all his neighbours were Jews.
Funny, in all these interminable debates about Israel, peace, and concessions, one has yet to hear about any Arab or "Palestinian" calls for peace and concessions. Wonder why is that.
When it comes to Israel the world has gone through the looking glass. Literally everything commonly believed is the exact opposite of reality. What a job the Palestinians and their Nazi supporters have done in tricking the world.
The Israel supporters should have turned the debate around and asked if the palis ever wanted peace and force their supporters to prove it.
I don't understand why Israel supporters always get suckered into these rigged debates where they are put on the defensive and made to explain their case.
The pali supporters should be the ones put in the docket. Let them be forced to defend hamas, the PA, islamic jihad, fatah terror gangs, suicide bombings, palestinian curriculum which teaches children to aspire to martyrdom, that is blow themselves up in a crowd of Jews and the celebrations in the streets after successful terrorist attacks slaughter Jews.
Let them be forced to explain why after being given full autonomy in Gaza they chose to vote for hamas and build a terror infrastructure instead of building a prosperous economy and choosing peaceful coexistence with Israel?
Isn't it time that the palis and their supporters were put on the defensive and made to explain the horrific choices they continue making?
Only one side has always wanted peace, and it's never been the palis.
I find the entire premise of this debate ridiculous and offensive, and you shouldn't even have dignified it by participating in their rigged game.
Why was the premise of this debate even about whether Israelis ever wanted peace when the "palestinians" in words and deeds have never even PRETENDED to want peace?
The entirety of "palestinian" identity and purpose is the elimination of Israel.
They've been terrorizing and murdering Jews unceasingly since before the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
So, why is the onus always only on Israel to bring about peace?
It goes without saying that Israelis have tried for peace.
Why aren't the "palestinians" and islam, their eliminationist and supremacist ideology ever the focal point of these debates?
Why not hamas' charter calling for the genocide of Jews ever discussed?
How is it ever possible to compromise with those who are fully committed to your elimination?
How do you bring about peaceful coexistence with those who want your conversion, submission or death?
Those questions won't be addressed by Oxford or any hard left university debating society.
Islam and its uncompromising commitment and dedication to global dominance will never be a topic for debate.
Jews and other supporters of Israel should stop playing this rigged game where you are always put in the position of explaining and defending.
Stop falling for their games.
Instead, the palis and their supporters need to be the ones put on the defensive.
It is their position that should be delegitimized and they should be forced to explain themselves.
Why only the legitimacy of Israel is questioned? Other States created after WW2 ended or when Israel was formed never have their legitimacy questioned? All of this debate is theater. It remains the 4000 years of pure antisemitism that fuels a non debate.
I like the comment that asked did the Arabs and Palestinians ever want peace. That would be a slam dunk win for the NO side. Just read Hamas’ founding charter. BOOM - a win.
To say Israel never wanted peace is an abomination, Jews have longed for peace. It is obvious it the Arabs who do not want peace with Israel, they have initiated hostilities repeatedly.
Whether or not Jews have an historic claim to the land of Israel always seemed irrelevant to me. Over many, many years, numerous attempts were made to establish a homeland for Jews. In Africa, in Russia, in the Far East, in New York State (of all places). But none proved politically or otherwise viable. A window of opportunity opened after the defeat of the Ottomans and Jews seeking a homeland took it. Now, eighty years later, they are there and will NEVER go elsewhere. Whether or not it was our home before doesn’t matter. It is ours now.
The most sorrowful thing about a Jewish homeland surrounded by enemies is what it has done to the peaceful spirit of Judaism. As a people, we are (generally) thoughtful, contemplative, analytical, imaginative, sensitive, appreciative of beauty. At least that was how I was raised to be. Over history we have been brilliant scientists, scholars, writers, musicians, artists, businessmen, philosophers. Entirely out of proportion to our small numbers, we have contributed greatly to the best that our civilization has to offer. Now, in Israel, in order to survive, we have necessarily become warriors and, yes, killers. That is not in our nature. That is why, while I realize the necessity of Israel’s existence for Jews everywhere, I grieve and despair about what Israel has done to us.
—"we have necessarily become warriors and, yes, killers. That is not in our nature."
I apologize for quibbling, but I think killing is an essential part of human nature, especially when being confronted by people who want to kill you. (I even think the Old Testament backs me up here, I recall a lot of killing in it.)
"I grieve and despair about what Israel has done to us."
Sometimes it seems that Diaspora Jews want Israels to suffer and die just to make their social lives easier and because they have personal issues around violence. (As they've mostly lived in safe and prosperous societies sans existential threats.)
This is from Paul Johnson's "History of the Jews":
"The Jews had been persecuted for a millennium and a half and had learned from long experience that resistance cost lives rather than saved them. Their history, their theology, their folklore, their social structure, even their vocabulary trained them to negotiate, to pay, to plead, to protest, not to fight."
Diaspora survival strategies and Israeli survival strategies (not to mention threats) no longer seem to overlap. Yes, Jews have been "thoughtful, contemplative, analytical, imaginative, sensitive..." etc etc, but they've also been hated and hunted and murdered wholesale.
Israelis don't have this luxury and if they'd laid down their arms anytime in the past 75 years, they would have been destroyed. Thank god they didn't.
Excellent. Thank you for putting yourself out there with the haters. Thank you for your voice of reason, clarity, truth and wisdom. Thank you to Emily Schrader, Hen Mazzig, Dr. Einat Wilf, and Yonatan Ben-Menachem as well.
What's most disturbing to me is the nature and framing of this "debate" being brought forward at Oxford University. An institution that, at least in its own self-conception, has (or should have) as a foundational principle, rigorous intellectual inquiry. That means propositions that can be tested and challenged with empirical, verifiable evidence. Universities love to urge politicians to adopt "evidence-based policy." Yet here were self-styled "intellectuals" pushing an assertion which can neither be proved or refuted, because it refers to the inner thoughts and motivations of people. A whole people. I need not repeat the vast and comprehensive body of empirical, verifiable evidence of what Israel actually did, and offered, and what its leaders said, that runs directly against the Oxford Union proposition. Avi and others have done a fine job of that. But what you have to believe to support the Oxford debate is that none of that actual evidence matters. You, the Oxford Union, know better what Israel really wanted. You, the Oxford Union, are mind-readers and soul-whisperers. Never mind what Israel has done, or said. We know what those Israelis were *really* thinking, and wanting.
Soon, the House will vote on an amendment to block taxpayer funding to Israel’s military.
I will be voting yes.
The Israeli government’s actions in Gaza raise serious concerns under international law, and its decisions have risked drawing the United States deeper into broader regional conflict, including with Iran. American taxpayers should not be asked to fund further military escalation.
I recognize that this amendment, as written, may affect both military assistance (approximately $3.3 billion) and a smaller portion of diplomatic funding (around $50 million). Ideally, these would be considered separately.
However, the central issue is clear: billions in military funding.
At a time of rising global instability, we must carefully evaluate where and how American resources are used and whether they align with our values, our laws, and our long-term interests.
For me, opposing this scale of military funding is the right decision.
We shall survive without US military funding if need be. The US cannot be counted on for any kind of continuous support, for any country anywhere. That has been shown to be the case even in Israel's short modern history as a State - for those first difficult years of statehood there was no US financial or military support; attacked by five Arab countries in our nascent state, we achieved support via Czechoslovakia. Being aligned with the US of more recent times has also seen us having to fight wars with a hand tied behind our back, which only slows things up and prevents quicker outcomes - see Biden's restrictions imposed.
Please give us all a break with your reference to 'international law'. Suddenly all countries' peoples are experts on international law - the two words are mouthed easily, without real knowledge pertaining to them. Do you happen to have an opinion on the savagely barbaric invasion of Israel by Hamas and the stated intention of genocide written in their Charter? Do you happen to have an opinion on the billions of dollars of aid money used to build 350 kms. of tunnels underground in which to house weapons and 250 hostages taken from Israeli territory? The central issue is clear, is it? I don't think so. North American values, laws and long term interests? These three things are certainly kept so close to home for your citizens that they're confined by insularity.
The issue to be debated is a great litmus test of sorts because it helps crystallize the disingenuousness of those who want israel to disappear and will obfuscate or lie in that quest. The speakers in favor of the resolution like so many who manned the college quads of America or marched in the streets of London( and elsewhere) and today win primaries in NEW YORK CITY itself have a desire for one thing only : no more israel and that of course means lots of dead jews .
Oxford is no.longer a revered English institution. It has bastardized itself as can be witnessed time after time in the Oxford Union. Of course England itself increasingly is a mere historic relic.
I think there should have been mention in the speech of Muslims being about to turn every single agreement down no matter how generous
👏👏👏👏👏 the willful ignorance of these fools brings down the reputation of Oxford Uni. As Jesus said, "Love your neighbour." And all his neighbours were Jews.
Send them penniless to Gaza
Funny, in all these interminable debates about Israel, peace, and concessions, one has yet to hear about any Arab or "Palestinian" calls for peace and concessions. Wonder why is that.
Yet more proof that Jew haters care not one whit for such niceties as facts, history, logic and truth.
So what’s new…. Wherever you go, there you are.
Will there be a round that argues that Palestine never wanted peace? That would be worth knowing.
When it comes to Israel the world has gone through the looking glass. Literally everything commonly believed is the exact opposite of reality. What a job the Palestinians and their Nazi supporters have done in tricking the world.
The Israel supporters should have turned the debate around and asked if the palis ever wanted peace and force their supporters to prove it.
I don't understand why Israel supporters always get suckered into these rigged debates where they are put on the defensive and made to explain their case.
The pali supporters should be the ones put in the docket. Let them be forced to defend hamas, the PA, islamic jihad, fatah terror gangs, suicide bombings, palestinian curriculum which teaches children to aspire to martyrdom, that is blow themselves up in a crowd of Jews and the celebrations in the streets after successful terrorist attacks slaughter Jews.
Let them be forced to explain why after being given full autonomy in Gaza they chose to vote for hamas and build a terror infrastructure instead of building a prosperous economy and choosing peaceful coexistence with Israel?
Isn't it time that the palis and their supporters were put on the defensive and made to explain the horrific choices they continue making?
Only one side has always wanted peace, and it's never been the palis.
I find the entire premise of this debate ridiculous and offensive, and you shouldn't even have dignified it by participating in their rigged game.
Why was the premise of this debate even about whether Israelis ever wanted peace when the "palestinians" in words and deeds have never even PRETENDED to want peace?
The entirety of "palestinian" identity and purpose is the elimination of Israel.
They've been terrorizing and murdering Jews unceasingly since before the establishment of the modern state of Israel.
So, why is the onus always only on Israel to bring about peace?
It goes without saying that Israelis have tried for peace.
Why aren't the "palestinians" and islam, their eliminationist and supremacist ideology ever the focal point of these debates?
Why not hamas' charter calling for the genocide of Jews ever discussed?
How is it ever possible to compromise with those who are fully committed to your elimination?
How do you bring about peaceful coexistence with those who want your conversion, submission or death?
Those questions won't be addressed by Oxford or any hard left university debating society.
Islam and its uncompromising commitment and dedication to global dominance will never be a topic for debate.
Jews and other supporters of Israel should stop playing this rigged game where you are always put in the position of explaining and defending.
Stop falling for their games.
Instead, the palis and their supporters need to be the ones put on the defensive.
It is their position that should be delegitimized and they should be forced to explain themselves.
Of course, their position is indefensible.
Why only the legitimacy of Israel is questioned? Other States created after WW2 ended or when Israel was formed never have their legitimacy questioned? All of this debate is theater. It remains the 4000 years of pure antisemitism that fuels a non debate.
I like the comment that asked did the Arabs and Palestinians ever want peace. That would be a slam dunk win for the NO side. Just read Hamas’ founding charter. BOOM - a win.
To say Israel never wanted peace is an abomination, Jews have longed for peace. It is obvious it the Arabs who do not want peace with Israel, they have initiated hostilities repeatedly.
Whether or not Jews have an historic claim to the land of Israel always seemed irrelevant to me. Over many, many years, numerous attempts were made to establish a homeland for Jews. In Africa, in Russia, in the Far East, in New York State (of all places). But none proved politically or otherwise viable. A window of opportunity opened after the defeat of the Ottomans and Jews seeking a homeland took it. Now, eighty years later, they are there and will NEVER go elsewhere. Whether or not it was our home before doesn’t matter. It is ours now.
The most sorrowful thing about a Jewish homeland surrounded by enemies is what it has done to the peaceful spirit of Judaism. As a people, we are (generally) thoughtful, contemplative, analytical, imaginative, sensitive, appreciative of beauty. At least that was how I was raised to be. Over history we have been brilliant scientists, scholars, writers, musicians, artists, businessmen, philosophers. Entirely out of proportion to our small numbers, we have contributed greatly to the best that our civilization has to offer. Now, in Israel, in order to survive, we have necessarily become warriors and, yes, killers. That is not in our nature. That is why, while I realize the necessity of Israel’s existence for Jews everywhere, I grieve and despair about what Israel has done to us.
Israel has done to you? You mean, what the enemies of the Jews have done to you.
Don’t fall into the trap of internalized Jew hatred.
—"we have necessarily become warriors and, yes, killers. That is not in our nature."
I apologize for quibbling, but I think killing is an essential part of human nature, especially when being confronted by people who want to kill you. (I even think the Old Testament backs me up here, I recall a lot of killing in it.)
"I grieve and despair about what Israel has done to us."
Sometimes it seems that Diaspora Jews want Israels to suffer and die just to make their social lives easier and because they have personal issues around violence. (As they've mostly lived in safe and prosperous societies sans existential threats.)
This is from Paul Johnson's "History of the Jews":
"The Jews had been persecuted for a millennium and a half and had learned from long experience that resistance cost lives rather than saved them. Their history, their theology, their folklore, their social structure, even their vocabulary trained them to negotiate, to pay, to plead, to protest, not to fight."
Diaspora survival strategies and Israeli survival strategies (not to mention threats) no longer seem to overlap. Yes, Jews have been "thoughtful, contemplative, analytical, imaginative, sensitive..." etc etc, but they've also been hated and hunted and murdered wholesale.
Israelis don't have this luxury and if they'd laid down their arms anytime in the past 75 years, they would have been destroyed. Thank god they didn't.
We are descended from warriors. The "apple of God's eye", King David, was one of them.
✍🏻RL Tribe is Judah💪
Excellent. Thank you for putting yourself out there with the haters. Thank you for your voice of reason, clarity, truth and wisdom. Thank you to Emily Schrader, Hen Mazzig, Dr. Einat Wilf, and Yonatan Ben-Menachem as well.
What's most disturbing to me is the nature and framing of this "debate" being brought forward at Oxford University. An institution that, at least in its own self-conception, has (or should have) as a foundational principle, rigorous intellectual inquiry. That means propositions that can be tested and challenged with empirical, verifiable evidence. Universities love to urge politicians to adopt "evidence-based policy." Yet here were self-styled "intellectuals" pushing an assertion which can neither be proved or refuted, because it refers to the inner thoughts and motivations of people. A whole people. I need not repeat the vast and comprehensive body of empirical, verifiable evidence of what Israel actually did, and offered, and what its leaders said, that runs directly against the Oxford Union proposition. Avi and others have done a fine job of that. But what you have to believe to support the Oxford debate is that none of that actual evidence matters. You, the Oxford Union, know better what Israel really wanted. You, the Oxford Union, are mind-readers and soul-whisperers. Never mind what Israel has done, or said. We know what those Israelis were *really* thinking, and wanting.
Soon, the House will vote on an amendment to block taxpayer funding to Israel’s military.
I will be voting yes.
The Israeli government’s actions in Gaza raise serious concerns under international law, and its decisions have risked drawing the United States deeper into broader regional conflict, including with Iran. American taxpayers should not be asked to fund further military escalation.
I recognize that this amendment, as written, may affect both military assistance (approximately $3.3 billion) and a smaller portion of diplomatic funding (around $50 million). Ideally, these would be considered separately.
However, the central issue is clear: billions in military funding.
At a time of rising global instability, we must carefully evaluate where and how American resources are used and whether they align with our values, our laws, and our long-term interests.
For me, opposing this scale of military funding is the right decision.
We shall survive without US military funding if need be. The US cannot be counted on for any kind of continuous support, for any country anywhere. That has been shown to be the case even in Israel's short modern history as a State - for those first difficult years of statehood there was no US financial or military support; attacked by five Arab countries in our nascent state, we achieved support via Czechoslovakia. Being aligned with the US of more recent times has also seen us having to fight wars with a hand tied behind our back, which only slows things up and prevents quicker outcomes - see Biden's restrictions imposed.
Please give us all a break with your reference to 'international law'. Suddenly all countries' peoples are experts on international law - the two words are mouthed easily, without real knowledge pertaining to them. Do you happen to have an opinion on the savagely barbaric invasion of Israel by Hamas and the stated intention of genocide written in their Charter? Do you happen to have an opinion on the billions of dollars of aid money used to build 350 kms. of tunnels underground in which to house weapons and 250 hostages taken from Israeli territory? The central issue is clear, is it? I don't think so. North American values, laws and long term interests? These three things are certainly kept so close to home for your citizens that they're confined by insularity.