The [BBC World Service's] Doha Debates have been invited to hold an event at the Oxford Union - the world famous debating society of Oxford University - on the 1st of May.
The motion to be debated will be: This House believes the pro-Israeli lobby has successfully stifled Western debate about Israel's actions.
A group of students from Qatar will travel with the Doha Debates team to Oxford University to participate as audience members.
This will be the first Doha Debate to be held outside Qatar.
Hat tip: Judith Klinghoffer.
UPDATE: The title of this post is a reference to the fact that the resolution obviously can't be true, because if the pro-Israel lobby was so powerful, and so successful at stifling debate, one of the most powerful media companies in the world (the BBC) wouldn't be flying students from Qatar to one of the most prestigious universities in the world (Oxford) for an internationally broadcasted debate on the pro-Israel lobby's alleged power.
Or perhaps clutch my throat and fall over.
I do see that, and it's a fine rhetorical point, although I hardly think it's a conclusive argument on the question presented. As to which, by the way, I have not stated a position.
My only point was that people unfamiliar with Union style debating (e.g. Richard, above) might be confused as to why the proposal for adoption is stated in this one-sided manner. It's just how they do things.
Obviously a crafty
jewishIsraeli plot to present the illusion of debate. No doubt the 'students from Qatar' are really Israeli agents.When was the last time the government seriously debated our policy towards Taiwan?
Or South Korea?
Or England?
or Japan?
or Canada?
pmen, I believe you missed my sarcasm.
What the proponents would need to show, I take it, is that debate has been limited or chilled in some significant (and undesirable) way.
1) The existence of this debate is merely evidence against the resolution, and not conclusive evidence by any means - this debate is the exception that proves the rule;;
2) Your argument relies on a definition of "Western debate" that would make the resolution tautological, and therefore it cannot be the correct definition, otherwise there would be no point to the debate;
3) This argument is just another way for Zionists to try to hamper debate about the core issue of the West's relationship with Israel.
Note that I personally do not believe in any of the nonsense about their being some ultra-powerful Jewish lobby in the West. I am merely pointing out that for an Oxford-style debater, this resolution is imminently debatable and not self-evidently false within the context of that competition.
Sounds like an easy opposition victory though.
No, I didn't.
The argument has two versions. In the "weak" version (which I think is the better version), the existence of the debate is presented as _evidence_ that debate, in society as a whole, has not been suppressed. This is a very legitimate point to make, although there is a counterargument (ie., the Oxford Union is a university club, not a parliament, and it is questionable how much attention society as a whole pays to it, so the lack of stifling here may not be particularly relevant vis a vis whether stifling is in fact going on in society at large). And away we go.
The "strong" version attempts to assert that the proposition (debate is being stifled) is _logically impossible_ because, well, we're debating it. Let's put it into a syllogism that illustrates the problem:
Axiom - The debate is scheduled to happen.
Axiom - If debate were being stifled, there would be no debates.
Therefore - debate is not being stifled.
Obviously, the second premise, framed in this way, is debatable, so the syllogism fails to reduce this to a simple exercise in logic. I'm not sure that "tautology" is exactly correct - the problem is the premise that "stifled [Western] debate" = "no debates [in college clubs]."
Again, I'm not commenting on the underlying issue, just agreeing that it is debatable, not self-answering. Not I have anything to hide but because I do not like the way the question is presented here. Nor do I have any informed idea what the likely outcome at the Oxford Union is, although the information provided in the linked article and my sense of differing attitudes in Britain towards Isreal suggest that "easy opposition victory" may be wishful thinking.
Interesting side point: why have so many critics of Israel seemingly given up on arguing the merits, and instead claim that there must be a conspiracy against them simply because their arguments are not making the headway they'd like?
I see a tendency, in arguments where the participants have a strong emotional attachment, for people to get so attached to certain arguments that they come to thing of these arguments as irrefutable syllogistic proof that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with. See, abortion debate, supra. When people disagree with something that you believe to be self-evident, it's becomes easy to assume bad faith. Which leads you pretty quickly to an almost inevitably counterproductive meta argument about whether people are fairly engaging in the argument.
When the person making the argument that they think is self-evident is also faced with the fact that, self-evident or not, their argument has not led to the policy changes that they believe to be necessary, they often end up imagining that this is because of a conspiracy of some sort, rather than admit that their position isn't really self-evident.
This dynamic happens even without anti-semitic fantasies about monolithic, international Jewish cabals entering into the picture. Which is not to say, of course, that such fantasies and fantasists are not at least sometimes part of the dynamic here.
At least there are people who would believe that.
David—I take it your interesting side point was deliberately tendentious, but I'll quibble anyway that, while there are plenty of "conspiracy" theorists out there, the topic referred only to a "lobby"; it's not positing shadowy corrupt octopuses, just too-effective political advocacy. And for the record I haven't noticed any particular, ah, reluctance among anti-Zionists to argue the merits. ;-)
Interesting side point, though. Who are these "anti-Zionists" to whom you are referring, and to what extent are they congruent with David's class of "critics of Isreal"? Are we talking about the same people here?
Similarly, who constitutes the "pro-Isreal lobby"? Is David a member? What is "political advocacy"? Are we talking only about meetings between congressmen and actual registered lobbyists, or do phone calls from constituents count? How about weblog posts? And what makes any of this "too effective" as opposed to simply "effective"?
I feel like I need to clarify my own position here. (sigh). I refuse to get into the "merits" of this "debate" because I don't see any. I don't think that the debate question is "self-answering." I do think it was purposefully posed in a provocative way that distracts _everyone_ from legitimate debates about policy.
I also refused to get into merits issues because that's not why I'm here. I came to this discussion because I'm interested in the ways in which people argue, ie., as a student of the meta-level discussion going on here.
I do have "opinions about Isreal" (probably different ones than at least some of the people here seem to be assuming), but I don't care to talk about them in the context of question presented here (ie. "monolithic Jewish conspiracy? discuss.")
Similarly who the lobby is and what it's done are things a proponent would need to explain. I'm interested to hear the debate for that very reason; hopefully an OU debate will be more enlightening than the average bunfight.
(I do think that false accusations of anti-semitism get thrown around, with some chilling effect (though I'm not accusing anyone in particular here), but rather than argue that point I just wanted to endorse your explanation of "bad faith" assumptions.)
Don't the Jews control the media? But how can that be if they allow "news" from the Middle East to be reported by those so prejudiced against the state of Israel that they condemn Israeli for counterstrikes against those who launch murderous attacks against its citizens from bases in Gaza and Lebanon? And if "the pro-Israeli lobby has successfully stifled Western debate about Israel's actions, why do Israel's critics have so little trouble broadcasting their opinions widely, often with the help of organizations, like the National Union of Journalists, that greatly amplify their voices.
Robert Novak, implacable critic of Israel uses the bully pulpit of his syndicated column published in >200 papers to put out self-evident crap like "Hamas taling peace, US not listening." And there are many more like Novak. But those who would answer them are stiffling debate?!
The most famous example being "[t]his House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country," which was adopted by the Union in 1933.
Many regard that as the most infamous example. If the Oxford Union adopts this current resolution, it will not bring them any honor, except among those of a certain world view.
Perhaps, Adrian. But over the last several years, as documented by Melanie Phillips and others, there has been an increase in pre-emptive accusations of false accusations -- ie. "I know I will be accused of anti-Semitism for saying this, but even though the Jews/zionists/powerful forces who are out to silence any discussion of Israel's misdeeds/control of our media/control of our foregin policy, I am brave enough to tell you that [insert exaggerated, demonstrably false and outrageous accusation here]", hoping that anyone who might expose the absurdity of their charges will be either deterred or discredited by the pre-emptive charge of using false accusations of anti-semitism.