The fact that the controversial three day conference on Israel’s right to exist within international law has been cancelled is an extremely unfortunate conclusion to the decision to host such a conference in the first place.
Vice Chancellor Don Nutbeam explained that University took the decision due to ‘health and safety risks’. In fact, the cancellation of the conference poses grave ‘health and safety risks’ to our freedom of speech.
In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo massacre, the right to freedom of speech has taken centre stage, and millions have come out in support of such a fundamental right of our society.
The very nature of freedom of speech means that controversial subjects- subjects that are very close to people’s hearts and that they believe passionately about- can be explored.
To suggest then that the state of Israel’s existence is more sacred to those who support it than the image of the prophet Mohammed is to the vast Muslim community is in itself hypocritical and dare I say, anti-Islamic.
The argument is that the conference was to be a one sided ‘Israel bashing’ is refuted by its organiser Oren Ben-Dor, who, to The Guardian, declared he had invited many supporters of Israel to speak and some were scheduled.
Another core argument against the conference is that Israel’s right to exist cannot be questioned. Yet Israel’s existence was the result of such questions on how to deal with the Jewish population in British Palestine, which had previously been a part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries.
The very nature of Israel’s creation gives credence to the idea that nations can be dissolved. Therefore it is not an absurdity to entertain a process of creation and destruction which has been continuous since man’s inception.
The conference itself sought to apply international law to its debate, giving academic legitimacy to opinion and not absurd anti-Semitism, which leads tidily onto the final point.
The event has been labelled by some of its critics as anti-Semitic, which is perhaps the most gravest of mistakes by the Jewish community.
An article in The Guardian details how anti-Semitism in the UK is on the rise, and I fear that such acts by the Jewish community and supporters of Israel to prevent conferences like the one planned at our University only serves to exacerbate the situation.
The conference offers an opportunity for those in the academic community and students a podium for rational debate on the issue of Israel, by denying such a podium we give validity to irrational debate which would argue of Zionist conspiracy theories and Jewry’s plans for ‘world domination’.
If we censor the secure and stable channels to vent frustration, then such angst is allowed to back up into unsecure, unstable, pure anti-Semitism, which I believe nobody in the academic community wishes for.
It is worth mentioning that I firmly support the legality of Israel to exist as a nation. Hypothetically, if it were down to a yes/no vote, I would vote yes in favour of Israel.
But I believe in democracy, such as that which Israel enjoys, and I believe in freedom of speech. I would argue against the illegality of Israel, but I would defend the right of those to argue for it.
What are your views on the Israel conference? Let us know in the comments below.
Not quite sure, but did he just blame antisemitism on Jews?
Reply
Absolutely not, I am suggesting by taking action to prevent legitimate academic debate, illegitimate anti-Semitic debate will take it’s place. By blocking freedom of speech the Jewish community and supporters of Israel who campaigned against the conference are giving fuel to real anti-semitism. Like a knife, labelling anything that’s critical of Israel’s legality as anti-Semitic will blunt it’s effects. I would argue that by refusing informed debate projects a negative image of the pro-Israel community and works in the favour of anti-Semitism, and I would argue this has a direct correlation with the rise of anti-semitism in Britain. Suggesting this article blames the Jewish people for anti-semitism suggests that all Jews would condemn critical discussion of Israel, a very high ground to take.
Reply
I’m sorry, but that’s absolute rubbish. When pro-gay rights groups stand up against anti-gay rights groups, are they in fact fueling the anti-gay agenda? No, they’re not, the anti-gay groups are responsible for their own actions.
By saying it’s the Jewish community who have stopped this you are adding fuel to the fire – I know various Jewish students who have been too afraid to speak out against it for fear of backlash, or offending their Middle Eastern friends. How can that be right? We clearly already have anti-Semitism in this university, and this conference *could* have gone some way to addressing the issues if it had been done in a better way.
Reply
You’re suggesting criticising Israel is the same as being anti-gay? You’re suggesting that criticising Israel must mean you’re antisemitic? Would you suggest that criticising Obama makes you racist? Nowhere in the conference did it suggest anything negative about the character of the Jewish community, but of the Israeli state, the government.
Now if the conference explored Israel’s legal existence in relation to the proposal that the Jewish community are sub-human, then that would be in fact be antisemitic. But academic analysis of the legality of the STATE of Israel is not antisemitic.
If there are Jewish students who are afraid to speak out then that is an issue, but not one that is solved by censoring, as I’ve pointed out, legitimate debate.
Again I think it relevant to point out that I support Israel’s existence. But there can be no good in trying to oppress academic discussion.
Reply
Can we organise a conference to debate whether the conference should be held or not??
Reply
No. That would be probably be considered anti-Semitic too.
Reply
Debating Israel is not a debate of Judaism it is a debate on zionism, and there’s nothing wrong with being an anti zionist. It is a movement created for the sole purpose of displacing an entire race of people. Yet the west still support, fund and provide weapons to aid this fight against the Palestinians instead of condemning this behavior. Israel in the past year has bombed palestinian schools and hospitals and without evidence blamed it on hamas for using children as shields. They have put everyone in Palestine on a diet by limiting the amount of food reaching them. I don’t see how Israel can bully, torture and kill the people of Palestine just because they are Muslim and are going against zionist views that the Israeli land is for only Jews.
These beliefs have nothing to do with Judaism which all in all is like every other religion. They are zionist views and if we do not have debates like this and political pressure coming from the west then the are in serious danger of being wiped out.
Reply
So how can Israel do all of the above to a race just because their religion but the moment anyone criticises it, they are antisemitic?
Reply
Have you not been living in the west for the past 6 years?
Reply
‘The argument is that the conference was to be a one sided ‘Israel bashing’ is refuted by its organiser Oren Ben-Dor, who, to The Guardian, declared he had invited many supporters of Israel to speak and some were scheduled.’
Then where did this 80% anti-Israel activist number come from?
Reply
Those pro-Israel declined to attend; 80% is from the final line up.
Reply
Health and safety?? don nutcase strikes again
Reply
Totally agree with this, just because a minority group throw a hissy-fit and decide they don’t like the content of serious academic discussion DOES NOT give them the right to interfere and cause the event to be cancelled. This is blatant censorship by a group of dogmatic individuals who don’t want people to discuss the political, social and humanitarian crisis in Palestine and Israel. They seem to think that if it in any way does not agree with their opinion then people are not allowed to talk about it. Excuse me, but this is 21st century Britain were freedom of speech is allowed, not 20th century USSR!!!!!
Reply
Why can’t we all just get along?
Reply
Didn’t Charlie Hebdo fire employees after joking about Judaism?
The more you know.
Reply
OK, so it seems like the intention of the organisers was to invite an equal proportion of those supporting Israel’s right to exist and those opposing it. However, out of those who replied the overwhelming majority was those opposing, making the debate biased. Now you could argue that it was the supporters’ fault for not accepting invitations but I feel it should have been the organisers’ responsibility to give equal weight to both sides. I’m sure if they looked harder they would be able to find more people to argue for Israel’s legitimacy. That way they would have been able to proceed and there wouldn’t have be a legitimate reason to cancel the debate.
Reply