Double Standard Watch: Oxford Union gives new meaning to the word 'debate'

Thanks Dershowitz for your cutting-age thinking proces. I think the intrinsic intellectual disornesty of the brithish establishment should be exposed for what it is. Brithish institutions claim to be the best in the world, but in reality they are de ultimate impressionists with no real hard contents, distortionist, and liars wtith ferocious inclination and will to divide and destroy peoples, their culturs and their heritage.

Has anyone proposed a debate about whether the British and their grubby little island should be entitled to exist?
I have a few thoughts on the subject, particularly in regard to their predatory colonialist history, disrespect for other nations, their cultures and independence, their insufferable arrogance, hypocricy and cant.
I hereby place my own name forward, in nomination as proposer of,and speaker to, the following motion [ end of part 1]

Britain has ceasesd to exist ,philosophically and ethically as a Western country.
Its upcoming religious and national "Islamization" has been eloquently discussed and discribed in the recent book "LONDONISTAN".
The actions of the Oxford Union are the expected course of British national and moral decay

"In light of who they have shown themselves to be, and their quite despicable conduct over the centuries, that Treacherous Albion is not entitled to a continued existence, and that ways and means of assisting it to an early demise [incorporating the terms of reference of a proposed "road map of deconstruction", perhaps?] therefore also be included in the proposed "debate" "
What say ye?[end of part 2]

dont worry....oxford is surrounded by mosques, and the blasting of the call to prayer from the 120 decibel bull horns will make the debate impossible to hear in dhimmiland. the only hope for england lies not in the academe but in the soccer thugs

I disagree with the previous posts. Let the Brits be.... FAR AWAY FROM US!

What I never understood is why does the pro-Israel side not engage people further? Why isn't there a permanent demonstration outside the New York Times? Outside the UN?

People have a right to be critical of Israel. The idea that Israel is a democracy yet seeks a Jewish majority in terms of demographics isn't going to cut it in the 21st century. Apartheid isn't going to fly with the younger, diverse generation.

The Oxford debates have long ceased to be honest. They are grubby propganda fests. Oxford was named after the ancient cattle crossing in medieval times. They are returning to their roots with their bovine intelligence.

Now for a debate on whether the Oxford Union has a right to exist. I'd like to volunteer on the no side.

The only problem I see here is the choice of debaters and specifically for the pro-israel side. How can one be an advocate for israel right to exists and at the same time demands its destruction? This is sounds to me like a illogical blunder. Who then will represent the anti-israel side? Ahmedinajad? One might as well have an an all-out anti-israel ritual rally, with slogans and chants.

I was wondering, what happens to the old house of Lords members? Why aren't they responding to this blunder, if they really wanted to protect their honorable institution of higher learning.

The Oxford Union is only being true to the English nature, playing the anti-Semite's game, this time upon the pitch of the Arab/Israeli conflict.

The English are jealous of Israel and the USA. Many people have told me this because their standard of living is so lousy.

Thanks, Alan. You have said it so well.

Wow, Norman Finkelstein selected to defend Israel's right to exist. That would be like a terminal brain cancer patient defending his tumor's right to exist. I sure hope this illustrious debate is filmed so that it could be shown on Saturday Night Live. Next the Oxford Union could revive Jeffery Dahmer to defend the right of homosexuals not to be eaten.

how will Israel shine when it is destroying itself ethically? PR campaigns eventually burn out and the truth is exposed.

To Orit: News flash--Israel is the only land the Jewish people have to call their own. To condemn Israel for requiring a Jewish majority within this land would be the same as condemning Spain for requiring a Spanish majority within the land of Spain. No one would do such a thing, because it would make no sense--Spain would no longer be Spain.

To Orit, #8:

You seem to have missed Prof. Dershowitz's point. He has not said, nor would he ever, that people lack the right to criticize Israel. Rather, it is foolish to describe as a debate a discussion in which BOTH "SIDES" share the SAME ANTI-ISRAEL point of view. In what way is that a debate, and how is anyone to hear the other side? Get it now, Orit?

The British progressives are suffering from intellectual famine, perhaps from the same genetically engineered 'bug' they produced to destroy the Irish population. The Oxford
Union chaps' most malignant nightmare, is one in which a Jewish debater would debase a Brit in the defense of Israel. And so the extreme requirement to stack the deck is in order to insure a successful outcome.. Enter
Norman Finklestein, Hamas and Hizbullah.

Interesting how British antisemitism defined and identified the people of Israel (the Jews)as a nation without a state during WW2 and would not allow Jews refuge in their country who were fleeing the Nazis. Here the British were complicit in the slaughter of this stateless nation. Now that the Jews have a state the British would like to cease calling the Jews a nation. The British should have thought of that just before and after WW2 when they would not allow the Nation of Israel into England. Perhaps they want the Jews to be stateless and slaughtered again!

THE ONLY REASON THEY CHOSE THIS MOTION IS TO ATTRACT ATTENTION AND IT WORKS. NOBODY BELIEVE IN THE NOT LOONEY WORLD THAT ISRAEL SHOULD NOT EXIST!!!!!!
PEOPLE ARE JUST FED UP WITH THE CONFLICT AND ARE TRYING TO SOLVE IT.
DO YOU GUYS GET IT????

No self-respecting friend of Israel, no matter how qualified, should dignify such a debate. Because debating Israel’s right to exist is the same act of anti-semitism as “debates” about legitimacy of Judaism in which Jewish scholars were forced to participate in the middle ages. Israel, a member of UN, has the same right to exist as any country. Yet, nobody debates a right to exist of any country but Israel. Selecting anti-semites to represent both sides makes this “debate” an even more grotesque act of anti-semitism. It shows the true intent of the organizers and their true face of bigots.

Excellent expose Dershowitz. Obviously they padded the bill. That seems to be the climate unfortunately around the world not just in this farcical debate. Nations are willing to buy and sell lies and sacrifice norality and integrity rather than face an OIL crisis.

Say what you want, but Finkelstein has consistently supported the two state solution--hence an Israeli and Palestinian state--in allof his writings. He has been criticized by the left for this. Therefore, Dershowitz is being rather dishonest in portraying Finkelstein as one who wants to destroy Israel when all his writings say otherwise. Then again, Dershowitz isn't exactly known for honesty....face it Dersh, you practice "turnspeak" (who was that author again?) when you cite an orlando sentinal letter to the editor as support for your interpretation of 242.