Chutzpah

Chutzpah!

A definition of Chutzpah is when you might be to blame for something and then you condemn the outcome, which you yourself might have been able to prevent. This idea of Chutzpah is illustrated in the anecdote, the assassin of John F. Kennedy claimed that, surely, were Kennedy alive he would have released him from jail and therefore he should be released.

As Prof. Allan Dershowitz, I was also shocked when I read the line-up for the Israel debate at the Oxford Union this coming week. I have heard of Peter Tatchel from his own colleagues and he is indeed a known critic of Israel and pro-Palestinian. So how he could appear on the pro-Israel side of the debate baffles me.

However, I was even more shocked when I read a piece by Alan Dershowitz stating in brackets that he was invited to share the panel against the motion that “This House believes in the One State Solution” but turned down the invitation, because of the negative tone of the motion.

I agree with Dershowitz that this motion of course proposes eliminating the nature of the only Jewish state and is therefore provocative even before the debate begins. However, as someone who is familiar with the Oxford Union, I am not surprised and don’t consider it an excuse not to take part and argue forcefully against the motion, thus leaving it up to Norman Finkelstein and Peter Tatchel to fight it out together, with no true friend of Israel on either side of the debate.

To be true, I am thankful to Dershowitz for sharing this crucial piece of information, albeit in brackets in his article that he was initially invited to join the debate. Prof. Dershowitz, in Oxford, is considered an outspoken supporter of Israel and when we had the honour of hosting him a few years ago for the OU Chabad Society he drew a large and diverse crowd. He argued persuasively and cogently for the two state solution and his arguments seemed to have been largely accepted, followed by no overt hostile questions.

Therefore, I was encouraged to hear that the current headline-grabbing president of the Oxford Union considered inviting such an articulate and powerful advocate for Israel. I am sure it would have been then a level playing field, had Prof. Dershowitz accepted the invitation.

However, by turning down the invitation, it may have given the excuse to offer the debate to less than favourable personalities who don’t have Israel’s best interest in mind and are hardly considered supportive of Israel’s version of politics.

To say that this motion was negative from the start and therefore should not be attended by someone who could argue for Israel is problematic. Last year the Oxford Union hosted a similarly provocative anti-Israel debate entitled “This house believes that the pro-Israel lobby stifles debate on the Middle East”.

This debate, which was part of the Doha debates and hosted by the Oxford Union, had Israel critic Norman Finkelstein for the motion and Martin Indyk, a former US ambassador to Israel, and David Aaronovich, against the motion, both staunch supporters of Israel.

Neither of them said that the motion was negative and not worthy of being debated. The fact is, the Oxford Union would have debated the motion in any case. At least the Oxford Union had the honesty to invite Aaronovich and Indyk and they had the wisdom to attend. This is despite they lost the debate, which wasn’t surprising, as the audience was dominated by students flown in by the BBC World Service from Doha, Qatar.

In the case of the upcoming motion "This House Believes that One State is the Only Solution to the Israel Palestine Conflict", it appears they also attempted to invite a staunch defender of Israel, like Prof. Alan Dershowitz. Indeed, it would have been responsible for him to attend, if indeed the Oxford Union commands the international respect it is perceived to receive. At least someone else qualified to speak against the motion should have been suggested.

It is unfortunate that Prof. Dershowitz did not accept the invitation leaving the panel open for people far less qualified, if not critical. For him to blame the Oxford Union for this, though they have a responsibility to offer a fair debate, is nevertheless some degree of Chutzpah.