Why was Prof Alderman's invitation "a mistake"?

Maybe it's because of his extremist views on how it is justifiable to kill an entire civilian population.

From his wiki profile:

he argued that according to Jewish religious law, every Palestinian in Gaza who voted for Hamas was a legitimate target. He articulated his position in a debate with Rabbi David J Goldberg in The Guardian's commentary section. [6] He argued that according to the Halakha "it is entirely legitimate to kill a rodef – that is to say, one who endangers the life of another – and this is true, incidentally, even if the rodef has not yet actually taken another life"

I can't believe people are defending this loon.

Zair - I see so you must also think that President Obama is a loon for sanctioning the elimination of terrorists by drones in Northern Pakistan? Obviously you are unable to defend that even though it is sanctioned by International Law which in this case follows Halacha, thank goodness the leaders of the free world do not live by your immoral principles.

Maybe they didn't like his table manners. OK, it's just a theory

zair,

If Alderman's views are so repellent and so ridiculous, surely Profs Shlaim and Edwards would make mince-meat of him? Isn't that one of the reasons that we have debates in a liberal secular democracy? To test the validity of ideas?

To my mind, it is crucial for people to be able to debate ideas in public. If we can't, then we might as well shut up shop and go and live in Iran.

@Advis3R 'I see so you must also think that President Obama is a loon'

Childish whataboutery - address the views of Prof Alderman.

Anyone who justifies the killing of civilians in this way should not be given a platform in this country until he renounces these views.

zair,

Do you think that the panel in Belfast was balanced?

Do you think it would have been a good idea, or a bad idea, to find somebody who disagreed with Shlaim and Edwards?

If you had been organizing the discussion, who would you have picked to represent the pro-Israel perspective? Or do you think that another perspective is unnecessary and just muddies the anti-Israel line?

ttp://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/6387379/the-silencing-of-professor-alderman.thtml

Julius O'Malley
October 20th, 2010 6:28am
"As Melanie notes Shlaim has built an academic career demonising Israel, culminating in a professorship at one of the Western world most prestigious tertiary institutions. Those who became kapos did so as a ignoble choice in the most extreme of imaginable circumstances: of saving their own skins over being starved, beaten and worked to death. Who could honestly claim with any certainty that they wouldn't have made the same choice. Not me.

Shlaim, however, had a plenitude of choices available to him in life but chose to become an rabidly anti-Israeli historian; opportunistically, perhaps cynically, parlaying the prima facie legitimacy that his Israeli background and, especially, his Hebrew name bestows. Whereas the leading "Revisionist" Israeli historian Benny Morris finally saw the light after Oslo and had the character and intellectual honesty to go public, Shlaim actually sought to discredit both the post-Oslo historiography of Morris and the man himself - despite having previously regarded him as a "good historian".

Nevertheless one would not have expected an academic of Shlaim's standing - Jewish or not - to effectively silence a fellow academic.That Shlaim was one of two prime movers in the disgraceful, but telling, disinvitation of Alderman represents a new low - plainly he doesn't believe he can hold his own against Alderman and has no respect for quaint notions like freedom of debate, academic integrity or intellectual inquiry"

As previously stated, 'I can't believe people are defending this loon.'

I take it Anthony that you agree with his vile views wrt to all civilians who voted for Hamas as being fair game?

Agree or disagree, it's a valid debating subject.

Were Germans who voted for the National Socialist party fair game for the allies?

Or, to frame it as a moral dilemna (and one which Israel faces constantly):

If someone plans to harm you or your children, are you justified in harming them first?

Why is this something that should not be debated by rational human beings?

zair,

I don't think you understand. I am trying to ascertain the reasons why Alderman's invitation was withdrawn. You allege that it was because of his views about Hamas and its supporters. But you have no evidence for that. Of course, you might be correct, but it seems that you are making it up as you go along. A lot of people do, so you shouldn't feel that you are unique in this regard.

But are you in contact with Profs Shlaim and Edwards? Have they told you why they wouldn't allow Alderman to speak?