Gabriel Latner's sensational Cambridge Union speech last week

Simply sensational

I liked the bit about not engaging with crackpots. I presume he includes the EDL/BNP in that league.

Knock it off, t'sam.

Brilliant speech - if there was still a woolsack Latner would end up on it!

Why, Yvetta? Is it OK to engage with certain crackpots and not others, depending on your political prejudices?

Wasn't the script from the Python Footlights in the 60's

Ah hah, and you think that you know what "rogue" means? Well, I've looked it up in the dictionary...

tsam, that's a rather puerile point, isn't it? The speech makes reference to a terrorist who ordered the murder of 22 children. You may hate the EDL, fair enough, but it has not, to my knowledge, murdered 22 children. To draw a comparison is just silly.

Please grow up.

Amber honeyyyyyy your back swoon

What perturbs me slightly, is that they actually debate that crap at Cambridge.

They should be debating "This House believes that the Iranian regime should be immediately removed" and yet it has been cleverly sidelined to discuss whether Israel is a "rogue" state.

Call me "Gordon Bennett", but I am beginning to conclude that all is not well with the health of the English nation.

All right Anthony, I'll call you Gordon Bennett. Now I'll call you a taxi. Taxi for Mr Posner.

Amber, given half a chance the EDL would kill a lot more than 22 children. After all, their ideological ancestors murdered 1.5 million Jewish children during WWII

How about:

"This House believes that another 6 million Jews should be exterminated?"

What's wrong with that?

And then another clever Jewish boy could get up and say that "exterminated" doesn't mean "exterminated". It actually meant "protected" in the 15th century.

JH,

Jewish kids at Cambridge should not be debating whether Israel is a rogue state. They should boycott such debates. (If non-Jews, or anti-zionist Jews want to debate it, they can inevitably rock up.)

JH,

By going along to such debates, Jews are giving them legitimacy. It is unintentional but that is what is happening. And it should stop!

JH,

And the Israeli consul (or whoever he was) should NOT have been there. As Latner said no other nation would have sent a representative. And he is correct.They would NOT have been so bloody stupid.

I do not know if Gabriel is Jewish

And mainly because of him (I hear), the motion was defeated

Provided the rules are fair, I do not have a problem with Jewish kids at Cambridge participating in such debates.

http://www.oyvagoy.com/2009/05/22/israel-victim-not-aggressor/

I spoke at a similar debate at Durham University last year.

JH,

It is like the Spanish Inquisition. But this time, Jews are turning up of their own free will. It is total madness.

The rules are NOT fair because these motions are being put forward.

I wont tell you what my paternal grandma says if if i say something isent fair

JH,

Seems to me that a serious re-think is needed with regard to such debates at UK universities. I do not think that you should speak at them and the Board of Deputiesand the Zionist Fed should tell Jewish students to boycott them. Whether they listen is up to them, but they should be encouraged to boycott such motions.

Anthony,
"What perturbs me slightly, is that they actually debate that crap at Cambridge. "

In 1939 the Oxford Union proposed "we will not fight for our country" - and the motion was carried.

That was one of the (many) years they lost the Boat Race.

Which prompted Winston Churchill to comment: "a curious set of young gentlemen. They won't fight and they can't row!".

Av,

Sorry mate. I will discuss the issues with JH (if he wants to).

Not with you.

I wasn't discussing; I was anecdoting.

I can't see the point Anthony is making here.

Here you are debating with people who may agree with the proposal at this debate in Cambridge but you don't think that Jewish students should do so for real.

Are you proposing that lies and distortions about Israel should be given a free ride and go unchallnged so that La Booth and her ilk can crow about it on Press TV?

"For evil to flourish, all that is needed is for good people to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

I was about to make that point about the Oxford Union debate of 1939, only to find that Avraham beat me to it!

As long as there is a good chairman and the rules are fair, and as long as the speakers do not include explicit Hamas/Hizbolla supporters, I have no problem with these university debates. Whether we like it or not, Israel/Gaza/Judea+Samaria is the hot topic. Either we stand up for what we believe in or we don't. History suggests that standing aloof is not a great strategy.

Maybe Gabriel Latner will one day be a member of a Parliament and maybe there will be a piece of law being disussed which is hostile to Israel or to Jews outside Israel. Would you suggest he stands aloof then as well? If not, then this was the best possible preparation for him.

We do not have the luxury of standing aloof.

As long as there is a good chairman and the rules are fair, and as long as the speakers do not include explicit Hamas/Hizbolla supporters, I have no problem with these university debates. Whether we like it or not, Israel/Gaza/Judea+Samaria is the hot topic. Either we stand up for what we believe in or we don't. History suggests that standing aloof is not a great strategy.

Maybe Gabriel Latner will one day be a member of a Parliament and maybe there will be a piece of law being disussed which is hostile to Israel or to Jews outside Israel. Would you suggest he stands aloof then as well? If not, then this was the best possible preparation for him.

We do not have the luxury of standing aloof.

tsam, I see you have a crystal ball as well. Your evidence for your contention?

And equating "what I think they would do" with "what they do" is a rater intellectually impoverished game.

JH,

(1) The Cambridge Union is not The H of C. And Latner is not an MP; nobody elected him. (I am not going to comment on the contents of Latner's speech other than to say that it certainly was not "sensational".)

(2) Jews should use different strategies to deal with different situations.

(3) Jewish students should be encouraged to boycott these debates. You should certainly not participate in them.

(4) The debates are supported by Islamists at the university.I have my doubts whether the Cambridge Union is discussing human rights and Sharia Law in Saudi Arabi and Iran.
So I have to conclude that there is, an anti-zionist and anti-semitic process, determining which subjects should or shouldn't be debated.

(5) It is not about the "luxury of standing aloof". It is about responding in a vigorous manner, to a fashionable "pseudo academic" process, endemic at British universities, of delegitimising Israel.

(6) Would you talk at a motion:
'This House believes that another 6 million Jews should be exterminated?"
Why not?

(7) Or
"This House believes that Jihadists are right to target Jews"
Why not?
Because, both motions are outside the realms of acceptable discourse?

Cambridge University Israel Society Press Statement

25/10/2010

Cambridge Union Israel Society response to the defeat of the debate stating "This House Believes Israel Is A Rogue State". The motion fell by 180 votes cast for and 240 against.

The Cambridge Union rejected the notion that Israel is a rogue state, and with a significant majority.

Unsurprisingly, much of the debate focused on Israel being an exceptional state.

Israel's commitment to political democracy and judicial accountability were frequently highlighted.

At a time where the leaders of the Middle-East are engaging in peace negotiations, it is vital for discussion on university campuses to move away from one-sided biased criticism to constructive dialogue about a peaceful two-state solution, and we are delighted that Cambridge students appreciate this.

Ariel Levy
Israel Society President

Amber, without wishing to beat about the bush, the EDL/BNP are Nazis -- they give Nazi salutes and carry posters with swastikas. If they were in power, the would seek to murder like the Nazis.

tsam,

Why not write a separate blog about it? I don't think it is relevant to this disussion.

You could entitle it:

"EDL are Nazis and will murder Jews. Hoffman colludes!"

Tsam,

http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/edl-are-nazis-and-will-murder-jews-hoffman...

Seems that has been removed.

@Anthony re your 4:57

Suppose the motion was "Israel is not a rogue state"?

We have to take the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. I don;t like seeing these motions either but given they are there we have little choice in my mind but to participate.

The fact this motion was defeated is a huge milestone. Its significance cannot be overestimated. Together with the defeat of Labour, the failure of the forces of darkness to get the TUC to agree a full boycott and the disgracing of Judge Bathhurst-Norman, it is clear the tide is running our way.

Jonathan, how did the Durham debate actually go? Did you win it?

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/2689

So you lost the debate, Jonathan. I wonder why. Perhaps for the sake of Israel you should stay away from such debates, you appear to be doing more harm than good.

Durham: We lost it on the basis that the applause for us was not as loud as the applause for the other side. To me it sounded equal for both sides. It was a totally unsatisfactory way of deciding the result.

Our speeches were outstanding, my co-speakers were Eric Lee and Douglas Murray.

Dear oh dear, this chap Gabe sounds like a bit of a rogue himself.

http://www.varsity.co.uk/news/2689

No more debates at the union for him.

I agree, Jonathan, that is an unsatisfactory way. A coin-toss would have been just as good. But you entered the debate knowing the rules.

Having read Varsity, this Cambridge debate just seems silly, and Gabriel wasn't too clever with that outburst. if that's the future generation of this country's elite, we are in schtuch. But I suppose that's what we all did when we were playing student politics.

" ...you entered the debate knowing the rules."

actually we did not know that that was the way the winner would be identified ...

That's not very good. Was that a precedent or have other debates been concluded that way?

'Our speeches were outstanding'

self praise donkey brays ;)

JH,

Even if the motion was "Israel is NOT a rogue state", I still believe that it should be boycotted.

I reiterate...by turning up to debate these issues Jewish students are unwittingly helping to delegitimise Israel.

"if that's the future generation of this country's elite, we are in schtuch. But I suppose that's what we all did when we were playing student politics"

Oh, dear. And you really can't see how part II contradicts part I.
Yes, you certainly were playing instead of listening during Logic 101.