This is no debate but a rally of hate directed at Israel, argues DOUGLAS MURRAY
Comments by: Adina Kutnicki
(IF the debate centers – and cares about – around international law, relative to the legalities surrounding Israel’s rebirth, suffice to say that Israel’s haters will lose – hands down.
The (legal) fact of the matter is: said question has been settled, and here are the (legal) unassailable, irrefutable proofs:
This is no debate but a rally of hate aimed at Israel
EARLIER this month we once again saw what hotbeds of extremism and hatred some of our university campuses have become.
The Cambridge Union – the oldest in the country – enjoys debating that motion more than any other. It is a fixture in its termly schedules.
And once again last week the students of Cambridge decided to hold Israel guilty among the nations. Needless to say there is no record of Cambridge students debating whether Pakistan (created in the same year as Israel) is a rogue state. Despite there being far more reasons to do so.
Nor does the Cambridge Union annually denigrate any of Israel’s neighbours in the Middle East. During last week’s Cambridge debate the notorious anti-Israeli activist and discredited academic Norman Finkelstein explained to the students that Israel is worse than North Korea.
The students agreed with him. Next month the University of Southampton will become the latest university to fix its position on this bandwagon of hate.
University of Southampton will become the latest university to fix its position on this bandwagon of hate
And that is not what Southampton is organising. They are organising a one-sided anti-Israel rally. Anyone in any doubt about that simply needs to look at their speaker line up.
Every single panel is stuffed full of lowgrade academics and selfdescribed activists drawn from near and far but from a single political direction.
They are people like Dr Ghada Karmi who tours this country’s universities whipping up hatred of Israel. She was at Cambridge last week arguing that Israel is a “rogue state”. She describes herself as an “activist” and well she might. There is little recognisably “academic” in her routine.
