• Advertise here

Blog Awards

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogpolitics

  • Sablogrunnerupgroup

  • Sablogrunneruppost

  • JIB


« Worst of Dark and Best of Bright | Main | Evangelism of Hate at Wits University »

October 21, 2007



The first vital step in preparing for war is identifying your enemy and then matching an attack appropriate for his weapons.

Institutions such as Oxford are no less an enemy to Israel than Hizbullah and Hamas, only the effects of the weapons is felt less acutely. So too with Reuters, AP, BBC etc - the only difference between reporters that actively and consciously (or there isn't any other kind) report falsely on Israel, and a suicide bomber is the bombers commitment to the cause. They have no ideological differences. The reporter that stages photos and falsifies reports might say he does not support the murdering of Jews, but his efforts strengthen those who do, and so we return to the cliche of actions speak louder than words.

The sooner we as the Israeli and Jewish public realise that Oxford and the like are part of the enemy we will not only cease to be surprised by their actions but, more importantly, can begin to mount a defense with weapons appropriate to theirs.

Their weapon is misinformation. We need to assess the damage this does, in what areas, and how to mount a counter attack. Ignoring may sometimes be the best policy, as counter misinformation may be in others.In others, discrediting the source may be appropriate. One thing is certain, the weapon of choice for these enemies is lies, we will not subdue them by trying to convince them of the truth - they already know the truth. And in the battle for public opinion it is also very difficult to fight lies with truth because truth is limited but falsehood can be accommodated to match any argument.






The war metaphor is the favourite of American politicians. It takes a complex problem (say drugs) and simplifies it into right and wrong. Its a propaganda tool, in reality Oxford is made up of thousands of voices and opinions, its not one monolithic entity that can be defeated, what would that look like anyway? I think it perfectly reasonable for Steve (along with Alan Dershowitz) to question the member panel of a debate, but to liken them to suicide bombers is not.


Actually Benjamin, far-left intellegentsia is what fuels sucide bombers, tries to justify them and demonized their victims.
Without far-left academics and institutions that promote terror, there would be no suicide bombers.


The war metaphor might be the fallback of republicans. The apartheid metaphor is the fallback of the more simplistic and morally dubious left. Obviously when you're trying to get votes from millions of voting morons you have to dumb it down. One would hope though that an institution such as Oxford would at least have a smattering of self-thinking people, suffice it to say, their actions suggest they have as many if not more in-duh-vidualss.

As to the specific point though, Benjamin isn't far off by suggesting that Oxford isn't entirely monolithic, on the other hand, implying that Brett doesn't realise that is rather smug.

As for the "thousands of voices and opinions" - at a policy level, I think you're grossly exagerating - Newspeak and intellectual pandering to empty ideals of "multi-culturalism", "moral equivalence" and similar blinkers are more prevalent at institutions like Oxford than in the general population.


Thank you Hillel, I was being smug. However I do think that language is important and just as the apartheid metaphor clouds the issue so does declaring war on academics with whom you disagree. (ps If "in-duh-vidualss" isn't smug what is?)

I have heard many theories about suicide bombers; socio-economic, religion, nationalism, weak governments etc. I have never heard 'far-left intelligentsia'. What proof do you have that there is a causal link? It sounds unreasonable to me.


"in-duh-vidual" - a term coined by Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame. check out his blog and his (ir)regular newsletter to in-duh-viduals. No personal additional smugness intended over and above that intended by the inventor himself.

Without answering on Gary's behalf, I would suggest the link is not causative - but as Gary suggested i.e. "fuelling" - in others words generally exacerbating. Fuel can't start a fire, but dousing a fire in petrol doesn't help it calm down a whole lot.


Because Moral denigration encourages physical elimination.
Not only do the rabid anti-Zionists who boycott and demonize Israel display gross and racist anti-Semitism , but they also responsible to a large extent for terror against Israeli women and children.

It is entirely in keeping in the character of Islamists or rabidly leftist anti-Zionists that they should carry a rabid hatred of Israel to the point of defending the killers of Israeli children. Author Jacques Givet , in his remarkable book 'The Anti-Zionist Complex' refers to the massacres of Israeli children at Ma'alot and Kiryat Shmona in 1974 by the Marxist Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The author points out how prejudiced and unfair condemmnation of Israel in the United Nations has led to deeds: 'For moral denigration encourages physical elimination; a few days after the adoption of the resolution of November 1975, challenging the very existance of Israel, a bomb killed six young people (all of them refugees from Arab countries) in Jerusalem. The PLO forthwith claimed the credit for this feat, justifying it by reference to the United Nations resolution..."

In more recent years, Irish poet Tom Paulin explicitly called for the killing of Jewish civillians in Israel. A few days later , a five year old Jewish girl, Danielle Shefi, was shot dead in the Jewish village of Adura, by Arab terrorists , as she cowered under her bed. They also shot her baby brother. Journalists on the far left website indymedia openly gloated over and celebrated this murder. In 2002 leftist anti-Zionist journalist , Richard Calland , wrote in South Africa's far left Mail&Guardian that he "quietly celebrates Israeli casualties". Charlotte Kates , a law lecturer at Rutger University in New Jersey and an 'activist' of the pro-terror 'International Solidarity Movement' has endorsed the killing of Israeli children by Arab terrorists, calling Israeli children 'fair game'.

The same way, that the demonization of Jews by Hitler Goebbels and Der Sterner laid the way for the holocaust, I believe that the purpose of anti-Zionist propaganda is to pave the way for the genocide of Israel's Jews.
Who is in the forefron of this?
Leftwing itelligensia!


The more leftwing academics encourage the sucide bombers and child-killers of Hamas et al that their cause is just and that they have backing, the terrorists will be encouraged to continue their jihad.
The same way that without encouragement from the international left, Ahmadinejad would be unable to carry on building nuclear weapons to set Israel on fire!



My point was just one of semantics. As Hillel pointed out I do realise Oxfords hetergenousity. But it doesn't particularly affect my argument. The fact that any number of Christopher Smiths at Oxford might not be anti semitic (modern day Jew-haters feel free to substitute anti-zionist) is irrelevant - The institution acts as a whole.

Regarding the war 'metaphor'. You missed the point entirely. It was not a metaphor. It was not some childish comparison. I was suggesting that those who propose propositions which include Israel's destruction are as much an enemy of the state as a kid with an explosive belt or a lunatic president with a nuclear bomb. Mike understood me. Do you really think that Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah would be posing the threat they currently do without large scale moral and financial support currently coming from Europe? A support driven by the propaganda spewed out by news agencies, 'academics' and the like.
Let again reiterate though (before I get accused of advocating bombing Oxford) that the weapon of defense must be matched to the weapon of attack.


Funny Gary, your 2 above posts were written whilst I was writing mine and so I hadn't seen them - yet you essentially backed my arguments up with concrete facts


Is it a coincidence that the World Conference to Against RAcism' in August 2001, the worst hate fest since Hitler, took place two weeks before the WTC 9-11 bombings?


In fairness Gary I think that that comparison, and some others whose relationship is only temporal may not be valid as such attacks take months or years of planning which precede that event you describe.


Brett, it can take years to acquire weapons and make plans, but to pull the trigger at the ime thye did, could have just needed some international encouragement, which they did get plenty of at Durban!
The plans may have been in place, but Durban probabely gave them the go ahead.


As much as I would like to agree with you I can't. To my knowledge the flights and date were chosen well in advance. What you are saying has no factual basis other than that they were 2 weeks apart - its possible but highly unlikely. It is far more plausible to suggest that events such as the conference give support to the system of terrorism as a whole and only rarely lead directly to a specific attack.

Note: If the link were as direct as you imply would you support military action to prevent such events taking place? It sounds absurd but once you link the 2 acts the pre-emptive strike argument comes in


By your own argument, "that events such as the conference give support to the system of terrorism as a whole".
So yes, I actually would approve of millitary action to prevent genocidal hate fests such as the Durban Conference, because just as the Nuremberg rallies et al, led to the holocaust, so hatefests like Durabn lead to murders of innocents and possible genocide.
Events that promote terror do lead to terror, and I believe anything necesary to prevent them must be carried out.


I hear your point Gary and I agree that such events lead to deaths. I just cannot see that it is a direct enough link to justify military preventative action because military action means killing people. You have to have a pretty direct link, legally, ethically and halachikally to kill people. Saying that you would recommend military action is easy - would you be prepared to push the detonation button on the Oxford conference? Thats a big jump.


Brett, what I would be prepared to do is hardly relevant here, and I would most likely be banned from this forum and viciously blasted by Steve, if I told you what I would do.
But I fear that this anti-Israel Jihad by Islam and the Left will lead to a second holocaust and one holocaust is enough.
So if it would prevent the anihilation of the five million Jews in Israel I would be prepared every leftwing radical and insitution including the Oxford hatefest.



The fact that most "Christopher Smiths" aren't anti-semitic and don't support suicide bombing is exactly the point and hardly irrelevant. Oxford doesn't mandate a belief for all their members. I went along to: and the only agenda I could find was: "International action needed to improve governance and security in Africa". I would bet that most of the students and staff don't even have a clue about it. Oxford is multi-faceted we must recognize all of it and engage it as such.

If you give so much credit to the few voices advocating violence what about the much larger group that condemn it? I don't think most of these groups give a damn what some professor says, I don't even think they are listing. There are other reasons that someone gets up and turns themselves into a human bomb besides that someone somewhere far away advocated the idea.

You put forward a list of terrorist acts linked to calls for violence. This shows a correlation but not a causation. Would the PLO not have carried out the Jerusalem bombing if it was not for the Nov 1975 resolution? I don't know and I don't think you do either. I tend to place most of the blame with the person holding the gun. There is no proof that 911 was the result of the World Conference to Against Racism' in August 2001. I would suggest reading (I have scanned it but see no mention of the conference).

Finally I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Some arguments just end up circular and pointless.



Whilst Oxford may not mandate a belief, once the institution proposes a certain action the responsibility shifts to the individuals to voice their distaste - to be silent is to condone. As Edmund Burke said "The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
If the majority of Oxford students and staff were vocally anti anti-semitism, such a debate would not take place.

On the bright side, the organizers clearly showed their true intentions when they canceled the motion after Finkelstein was removed and pro-Israeli academics were invited to defend the pro-Israeli argument. The story is on Jpost.


More dithering nonsense. The entire point, the entire point of this exercise is to add fuel to antizionism pure and simple. Why is that? Because Israel has already decided on a two-state solution. Anything else is dull navel gazing silliness and anyone who engages in it is no better than the Lapudans of Gulliver's Travels who were so smart they needed to be hit in the head with a pig's bladder to be reminded it was their turn to talk. It's really almost beyond belief why this normally sober bunch here at IAS would even bother to burble and mutter at each other with crumpet munching semiotic abstractions over this.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search this Blog

Contact Us

  • Email_1

Events & Lectures

  • Advertise your event or lecture here

News Feed

Comments Disclaimer
