Student protest halts Israeli ambassador visit (From Gazette)

Well done students for denying those studying Middle Eastern politics the right to listen to the ambassador of Israel. How can those studying the subject actually make their own opinions of what is happening in the Middle East without listening to both sides of the argument ? I don't support what Israel is doing but what the protestors have done has only fuelled the Israeli argument.

Scoot wrote:
Well done students for denying those studying Middle Eastern politics the right to listen to the ambassador of Israel. How can those studying the subject actually make their own opinions of what is happening in the Middle East without listening to both sides of the argument ? I don't support what Israel is doing but what the protestors have done has only fuelled the Israeli argument.

Scoot, don't get too upset.
.
Israel is reaping what it sows. In the past, before its government started grabbing large tracts of Palestinian land for settlements, the deputy ambassador might have got a hearing. Not now.
.
Israel should demolish its apartheid wall, abandon all its settlements, and return to its pre-1967 boundaries. Then its spokesmen will be welcome.

Get your facts right. The Government Department DID NOT invite him. They were contacted it by the Embassy.
Here is an email i received from one of the lectures at the Government Department. (name will be removed as the lecturer did not respond to whether if its ok to have their their name.
Please feel free to contact the Government Department.

"The letter should note that the Government Department did not invite the speaker.

The university was contacted about the speaker.

Also the government dept, supports the protests as the speaker will be forced to take a route to the lecture hall so that he has to see the protests.

Best wishes,"

Scoot wrote:
Well done students for denying those studying Middle Eastern politics the right to listen to the ambassador of Israel. How can those studying the subject actually make their own opinions of what is happening in the Middle East without listening to both sides of the argument ? I don't support what Israel is doing but what the protestors have done has only fuelled the Israeli argument.

IF you do research on your own you will be able to make your own opinion on what is going. If your interested in what he had to say, check out his videos, its all the same sutff repeated over and over again. Or simply listen to what the Prime Minister says. Ambassadors are not policy makers, they are representative of the state itself.

The ambassador for a state surounded by anti Semitic out of control extremist lawless states.what does he find on colchester educational campus extreme intolerance.

Surely by admitting him one could de-construct his arguments for the continued occupation, or possibly learn something and possibly change your views? Isn't that a major part of university life?

Rather than jump on simple polemic bandwagons the students might benefit from realising that their own pre-decessors left the post-colonial region (and other regions/contients) with numerous non-viable states and or minorities ruling over majorities with it's consequences still being played out today.

On this day they might have shown more contrition for the massacre in 1919 in India for which we are only one beginning to apologise for.

This country needs to stop being so sanctimonious and start dealing with our own issues before lecturing others.

Hundreds, what a laugh, they counted 60 protesters on the day.

Scoot wrote:
Well done students for denying those studying Middle Eastern politics the right to listen to the ambassador of Israel. How can those studying the subject actually make their own opinions of what is happening in the Middle East without listening to both sides of the argument ? I don't support what Israel is doing but what the protestors have done has only fuelled the Israeli argument.

If they really want to hear mass-murderers justifying mass-murder, there's more than enough biased right-wing media out there for them. BBC, ITN, Sky, most of the printed media, they're spoilt for choice whenever this subject is reported on. Of course, if they really want to understand and know the truth, that's somewhat more difficult.

word of mouth wrote:
Hundreds, what a laugh, they counted 60 protesters on the day.

Whoever 'they' actually are, they need to attend a course on basic numeracy. Counting beyond sixty shouldn't be beyond most adults.

They being the security on site.

More important than bickering about numbers is the fact that, contrary to what the report states, this Israeli Government spokesperson was not invited by the university's Department of Government. He invited himself to a place where he was not wanted. The right thing to do with gatecrashers is to escort them off the premises.

Freedom of speech stopped by mob rule.

Democracy alive and well at Essex University or just a bunch of anti-semitic bigots?

Colonel Kurtz wrote:
Freedom of speech stopped by mob rule.

The Israeli state is already afforded an inordinate amount of freedom in the West from which propagate its justifications for its continued brutal occupation of Palestinian lands and the expansion of its settlements which amount to ethnic cleansing, actions which violate almost every international law ever written. The protesters rightly kept the campus free from right-wing Israeli rhetoric, that sadly is very persuasive among many in the UK. Representatives of a brutal oppressive regime, repsonsible for the slaughter of thousands is most certainly not welcome at a free thinking and cosmopolitan institution such as The University of Essex.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Democracy alive and well at Essex University or just a bunch of anti-semitic bigots?

Well as I've met Israelis who oppose their own government's actions, it's obviously the former.

word of mouth wrote:
They being the security on site.

Boris is right, the important point is the politics department did want him visiting. But would still love to know where you got the figure of sixty from? Today's Gazette puts the university's figure at seventy-five, with the Essex SU's estimate being between two and three-hundred. As anybody who knows anything about these things, if you want an accurate figure, it always ends up being around half way between the authority's figure, and the organisers' figure. So between 130 and 170 sounds about right.

6079 Smith W wrote:

word of mouth wrote:
They being the security on site.

Boris is right, the important point is the politics department did want him visiting. But would still love to know where you got the figure of sixty from? Today's Gazette puts the university's figure at seventy-five, with the Essex SU's estimate being between two and three-hundred. As anybody who knows anything about these things, if you want an accurate figure, it always ends up being around half way between the authority's figure, and the organisers' figure. So between 130 and 170 sounds about right.

Second sentence should have read: '...did not'.

60? 75? 130?....170? at least they all agree on the Jewish tradition of haggling. When they arrive at a number both sides can agree on maybe they can agree to move on to other stuff?

Boris wrote:
More important than bickering about numbers is the fact that, contrary to what the report states, this Israeli Government spokesperson was not invited by the university's Department of Government. He invited himself to a place where he was not wanted. The right thing to do with gatecrashers is to escort them off the premises.

Is that not a form of racism because some people do not agree with his views
Can't get my head around this one way racial thing.

ribble wrote:

Boris wrote: More important than bickering about numbers is the fact that, contrary to what the report states, this Israeli Government spokesperson was not invited by the university's Department of Government. He invited himself to a place where he was not wanted. The right thing to do with gatecrashers is to escort them off the premises.

Is that not a form of racism because some people do not agree with his views Can't get my head around this one way racial thing.

I don't wish to sound rude, but only a simple minded fool could confuse anti-Zionism with anti-semitism.

Israel is the most powerfull of the three thermo nuclear powers in the middle east.their secret service is active around the world.I don't think the mild embarrassment of it's deputy ambassador on a university campus by 200 students will even be noticed.

Whichever way you pontificators see it, there can be no doubt that freedom of speech has been denied to somebody that is a guest in our country. If you are happy with that then I am pleased that you hold no power in our country.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Whichever way you pontificators see it, there can be no doubt that freedom of speech has been denied to somebody that is a guest in our country. If you are happy with that then I am pleased that you hold no power in our country.

So Jess, by your argument, you wouldn't have a problem with a representative of the North American Man Boy Love Association speaking at the university. Raping kids is wrong, as is murdering kids, and the university should not be providing a platform for child rapists and child murderers. There's already more than enough right-wing media out there, giving a platform for those murdering kids in Gaza.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Whichever way you pontificators see it, there can be no doubt that freedom of speech has been denied to somebody that is a guest in our country. If you are happy with that then I am pleased that you hold no power in our country.

I'm glad your not running the country we'd have hateful speeches from a myriad of awful people and groups, promoted by the Government. Though I don't think you thought through the implications of your stupid comment, at least I hope so.

Pay a visit to Hyde Park Corner and listen to the hate filled rhetoric of some speakers there. I stood in amazement listening to a racist muslim preacher insulting just about everybody. It was an interesting insight into the hate that some people have. But he has the right to hold those views, just as an Israeli has a right to his. The difficulty I have with the Essex University bigots is that they are the cream of society, the educated elite. I am a mere pleb who will never amount to much - happily.

zt00013 wrote:

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Whichever way you pontificators see it, there can be no doubt that freedom of speech has been denied to somebody that is a guest in our country. If you are happy with that then I am pleased that you hold no power in our country.

I'm glad your not running the country we'd have hateful speeches from a myriad of awful people and groups, promoted by the Government. Though I don't think you thought through the implications of your stupid comment, at least I hope so.

It may be stupid to you but it is my view. Would you deny me that, coward who hides behind a pseudonym?

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Pay a visit to Hyde Park Corner and listen to the hate filled rhetoric of some speakers there. I stood in amazement listening to a racist muslim preacher insulting just about everybody. It was an interesting insight into the hate that some people have. But he has the right to hold those views, just as an Israeli has a right to his. The difficulty I have with the Essex University bigots is that they are the cream of society, the educated elite. I am a mere pleb who will never amount to much - happily.

Jess: While I can't speak for 'zt', I think you know I wouldn't deny your right to your views (whether or not you're using a pseudonym, which you did for many years), or those of the Israeli ambassador,the Muslim fundamentallist, or the BNPer. At some stage I've argued against all these views, and by arguing against them, I've tacitly acknowledged the right to hold these views. But once a university renowned around the world for its commitment to human rights, chooses to give a platform to somebody representing one of the world's worst governments for human rights violations, it goes from acepting the right to hold vile views, to actively promoting them. You didn't respond to the point about NAMBLA. Do you actually think in the name of 'freedom of speech', the university should add promoting the views of those who rape children, to promoting the views of those who murder children?

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Pay a visit to Hyde Park Corner and listen to the hate filled rhetoric of some speakers there. I stood in amazement listening to a racist muslim preacher insulting just about everybody. It was an interesting insight into the hate that some people have. But he has the right to hold those views, just as an Israeli has a right to his. The difficulty I have with the Essex University bigots is that they are the cream of society, the educated elite. I am a mere pleb who will never amount to much - happily.

Jess: While I can't speak for 'zt', I think you know I wouldn't deny your right to your views (whether or not you're using a pseudonym, which you did for many years), or those of the Israeli ambassador,the Muslim fundamentallist, or the BNPer. At some stage I've argued against all these views, and by arguing against them, I've tacitly acknowledged the right to hold these views. But once a university renowned around the world for its commitment to human rights, chooses to give a platform to somebody representing one of the world's worst governments for human rights violations, it goes from acepting the right to hold vile views, to actively promoting them. You didn't respond to the point about NAMBLA. Do you actually think in the name of 'freedom of speech', the university should add promoting the views of those who rape children, to promoting the views of those who murder children?

I have no knowledge of NAMBLA. I dismissed it as being an irrelevant, vile and unfair comparison with a bona fide member of a government that exists and is having to defend itself against murderous moslem extremists. Again, I have no real knowledge of Israel but do know about the holocaust and that the jewish people have a God given right to live in peace. Where does child abuse fit in with this? Of course child abuse is wrong and must be opposed but, I guess, the perpetrators of it have a view that we may despise but should be heard - if only to expose it and enable the wider world to oppose it. Israel exists. It is a recognised state. If the Palestinians were reasonable people, they could all live in harmony - and pigs might fly. The university should have an open mind rather than deny the freedom of speech that I thought was a basic right in Britain.

Sdapeze, you say "I have no real knowledge of Israel but do know about the holocaust and that the jewish people have a God given right to live in peace."
Then you should try and learn a bit about modern Israel and the way it has oppressed the Palestinians. People have the right to live in peace only if they are themselves peaceful. Those who bombard Gaza, killing people at random, and those who grab other people's land, have no right to live in peace, and certainly no right to demand to be heard in a British university.

Boris, everyone has a right to live in peace and to be heard. Violence begets violence just as preventing someone from speaking diminishes the morality of your own argument.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King were the most effective protestors because they rose above the hate.

Boris has a very one sided view of Israel and presumably condones the attacks on Israel by the Palestinians. As far as I see it, the Israelis are defending themselves and carrying out reprisals for the attacks. As Bobby says, they should rise above it and not retaliate - but that is the way of the arab and who are we to say they are wrong?

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Boris has a very one sided view of Israel and presumably condones the attacks on Israel by the Palestinians. As far as I see it, the Israelis are defending themselves and carrying out reprisals for the attacks. As Bobby says, they should rise above it and not retaliate - but that is the way of the arab and who are we to say they are wrong?

Jess: Comments such as 'that is the way of the arab' (sic), are just a little bit racist, especially coming from a subject of historically the world's most war like nation. As for your earlier comment, it astonishes me how anybody can ask the question: what has murdering children got to do with child abuse?!

In truth, Israel should never have been established in the first place, as a country it has no legitimacy, and was founded on an absolutely racist premise, with those originally living there being ethnically cleansed. I can remember talking to an Israeli friend of mine, who expressed both her sadness and horror that the Arab children she played with as a child, were forced out of their homes. And even since then Israel's crimes have mounted, such as Boris pointing to its illegal expansion into the occupied territories, and ethnically cleansing yet more people from their homes. No country on earth has defied more UN resolutions than Israel.

That all said, the mistakes of history cannot be rewritten, Israel is now a fact. So I see the only viable solution to be the two states one. But of course, while Israel continues to defy UN resolutions and international law, by occupying yet more Palestinian territory, it shows it has no interest in achieving that.

Your bleeding heart would have the Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. out of their homes too I suppose. With 6 million jews annihilated, can anybody blame them for standing up for themselves and finding a safe haven that is Israel? I certainly don't. The arabs are naturally bloodthirsty. The Irish may have had a problem with us but at least they weren't suicide bombers. And whilst I am at it Smithy, to continue the racism you accuse me of, Africans aren't good swimmers, the English aren't good at football and socialists live in a dream world.

Bobby Walker wrote:
Boris, everyone has a right to live in peace and to be heard. Violence begets violence just as preventing someone from speaking diminishes the morality of your own argument.
Gandhi and Martin Luther King were the most effective protestors because they rose above the hate.

Bobby: I always appreciate your contributions, but I find it a bit rich that a Conservative is trying to use a socialist such as Martin Luther King to further their right-wing view on this issue. With respect, I think us socialists have probably more idea of where MLK would stand on this.

That MLK was a socialist by the time he was killed by the US authorities, there is no doubt. He continually said that class, and not race, was the key issue when it came to the injustices in US society. And when he was assassinated, he was of course about to address a meeting of striking workers.

The call to boycott and no platform the apartheid state of Israel, did not emerge from a meeting of Essex University Student Union. Like the boycott and no platforming of the apartheid state of South Africa in the past (which played an important role in the fight against apartheid there), the call comes from those being oppressed, including the Palestinian trade union movement. While one could never be certain the line somebody who's been dead 45 years would actually be, it seems likely the idea of solidarity would have meant MLK would have supported his brothers and sisters in the Palestinian trade union movement. This is what the Essex University union was quite rightly doing, and they should be saluted for that.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
Your bleeding heart would have the Americans, Canadians, Australians, etc. out of their homes too I suppose. With 6 million jews annihilated, can anybody blame them for standing up for themselves and finding a safe haven that is Israel? I certainly don't. The arabs are naturally bloodthirsty. The Irish may have had a problem with us but at least they weren't suicide bombers. And whilst I am at it Smithy, to continue the racism you accuse me of, Africans aren't good swimmers, the English aren't good at football and socialists live in a dream world.

Jess: Being that I have already stated that the mistakes of history cannot be rewritten, then it is pretty clear that 'my bleeding heart' wouldn't have people in those other nations also founded on ethnic cleansing 'out of their homes', either. As for the rest of it, you've moved from being a little bit racist, to sounding like a member of the BNP. It's probably just a wind up, but racism really isn't a laughing matter..

True racism isn't a laughing matter. I agree. But the way you use it is in the form of Dalton's Law, used at a point when you have lost the argument.

Jess Jephcott wrote:
True racism isn't a laughing matter. I agree. But the way you use it is in the form of Dalton's Law, used at a point when you have lost the argument.

What then is 'true racism'? Up to this point, I'd assumed the blatant racism expressed by yourself: 'The arabs are naturally bloodthirsty' (sic), was merely a wind-up. But I'm now worried by this post. Are you just trying to make me say something like you're 'a stupid, brain-dead, racist, piece of sh*t', because you want us lefties to lose our temper? That's what I still suspect, but I am very concerned.

It all boils down to two things:
.
1) The Palestinians long ago vowed to wipe out every single man, woman and child in Israel, so what are you going to do when backed into such a corner. Yes! that's right, your only recourse is to fight back, and you're sure as hell not going to trust those people for a few generations even IF things don't get bad and worse. If you have a man eating tiger that wants your body, you are going to make darn sure it can't get any advantage on you.
.
2) The Israelis are doing what any human/humane person wishes those of Jewish faith had been able to do in the 1930s (and of course before that in all the centuries of persecution in various locations), and that is to fight back. There is no excuse for cruelty or wrongdoing, but then, what nation is perfect in that respect?

rhetoric wrote:
It all boils down to two things:
.
1) The Palestinians long ago vowed to wipe out every single man, woman and child in Israel, so what are you going to do when backed into such a corner. Yes! that's right, your only recourse is to fight back, and you're sure as hell not going to trust those people for a few generations even IF things don't get bad and worse. If you have a man eating tiger that wants your body, you are going to make darn sure it can't get any advantage on you.
.
2) The Israelis are doing what any human/humane person wishes those of Jewish faith had been able to do in the 1930s (and of course before that in all the centuries of persecution in various locations), and that is to fight back. There is no excuse for cruelty or wrongdoing, but then, what nation is perfect in that respect?

'1)'

Where on earth have you got that from? My guess is that as a result of a lack of intelligence, and knowledge, you've confused Hamas - who's establishment was backed by Israel, as a means to destabilise the PLO - with Palestine itself. Probably best that you go and read a book, and not embarrass yourself with such rubbish, until you've found out something about the subject.

No, Smith W, you go and live around that area as I have done, and listen yourself. I'm not Israeli, not Muslim, just a good listener and observer.
.
I am quite aware that is mostly the innocent and the would-be uninvolved who get the most hurt in any sort of military or political conflict. If you know a way around that please let us all know. Hey, wait a minute, you probably do! You are after all the Great Political Pontificator.
.
And, it's "whose" establishment, not "who's". Please don't set my teeth on edge at this time of day.

rhetoric wrote:
No, Smith W, you go and live around that area as I have done, and listen yourself. I'm not Israeli, not Muslim, just a good listener and observer.
.
I am quite aware that is mostly the innocent and the would-be uninvolved who get the most hurt in any sort of military or political conflict. If you know a way around that please let us all know. Hey, wait a minute, you probably do! You are after all the Great Political Pontificator.
.
And, it's "whose" establishment, not "who's". Please don't set my teeth on edge at this time of day.

It matters not where you've lived, what you are saying has no basis in reality whatsoever. It's obvious what you've done, as I've already pointed out. It is Hamas who have the constitutional commitment to the end of Israel. The same Hamas that was backed and funded by the apartheid regime. Talk about reaping the harvest that you sow. Get an education, and don't bother to come back until you do. You are an embarrassment to yourself.

Anyway, just to help you, here's a bit more history. The state of Israel was founded by terrorists, whose bombings (I'm dyslexic, I have great difficulties with similar sounding words, but only an idiot could fail to get the meaning) included an attack on the King David Hotel, which prior to 11/9/01, killed more Britons than any other terror attack. It was initially founded as a 'socialist' state, but this 'socialism' wasn't for the Palestinians living there, it was only for Jewish people. So in other words, just a few years after Jewish people were on the end of German national socialism, Israeli national socialism was being established. You couldn't make it up, unlike your rubbish.

Back at you!
.
Your tirade is verging on the racist.
.
Reading books and newspapers doesn't constitute being fully "on the inside and in the know", and nobody really ever is, because the human condition is vastly complex.
.
You seem so full of hate and disdain, and self-conceit, it must be difficult to live with it.
.
As you continue to rant on unpleasantly, it will obviously be a better world if most of us don't read these threads in future. Of course there are sad people like you who don't seem to have other outlets. Enjoy talking to yourself.

rhetoric wrote:
Back at you!
.
Your tirade is verging on the racist.
.
Reading books and newspapers doesn't constitute being fully "on the inside and in the know", and nobody really ever is, because the human condition is vastly complex.
.
You seem so full of hate and disdain, and self-conceit, it must be difficult to live with it.
.
As you continue to rant on unpleasantly, it will obviously be a better world if most of us don't read these threads in future. Of course there are sad people like you who don't seem to have other outlets. Enjoy talking to yourself.

Rhetoric, that's enough of that. Winston has been posting to these threads for a lot longer than you, and is one of the most respected contributors. I have had the honour to know him personally for the last 10 years or more, and I assure you that he is not sad, not conceited, and not one who needs to talk to himself. If he appears unpleasant to you, it is because we are discussing an unpleasant subject, and your own posts have been biased and aggressive, so you have provoked him into replying in blunt terms. Take the philosopher's advice: know thyself.

Boris wrote:

rhetoric wrote:
Back at you!
.
Your tirade is verging on the racist.
.
Reading books and newspapers doesn't constitute being fully "on the inside and in the know", and nobody really ever is, because the human condition is vastly complex.
.
You seem so full of hate and disdain, and self-conceit, it must be difficult to live with it.
.
As you continue to rant on unpleasantly, it will obviously be a better world if most of us don't read these threads in future. Of course there are sad people like you who don't seem to have other outlets. Enjoy talking to yourself.

Rhetoric, that's enough of that. Winston has been posting to these threads for a lot longer than you, and is one of the most respected contributors. I have had the honour to know him personally for the last 10 years or more, and I assure you that he is not sad, not conceited, and not one who needs to talk to himself. If he appears unpleasant to you, it is because we are discussing an unpleasant subject, and your own posts have been biased and aggressive, so you have provoked him into replying in blunt terms. Take the philosopher's advice: know thyself.

Thank-you, Boris.

Rhetoric: Everything I've said I can provide sources for, to verify I haven't just made it up. While I'm sure academic citations will be completely lost on you, check out the Wiki pages on Hamas, Palestine, the Stern group, and Golda Meyer. But you will not, and you will never find, any reliable source to back up your ridiculous and absurd claim, about Palestine's constitution. And claiming to be a 'good listener', is also ridiculous and absurd. It matters not whether you've completely confused what you've been told, or whether you are passing on somebody's else's confusion. A 'good listener' would either on the on the one hand, not find listening to others so confusing, or on the other, have some powers of critical reasoning to question what you're listening to.

As for the claim of racism, the only anti-Semitism is to assume all Jewish people, or all Israelis, are Zionist. Which is implicit to any claim that opposing Zionism, and the Israeli government, is somehow racist.

The world is indeed a complex place. But you are a simple, and feeble minded, fool.