This is a guest post by Oliver Worth.
How remarkable that after UJS successfully publicly exposed the willingness of FOSIS to allow their speakers to engage in shocking examples of hate speech, Douglas Murray, whose remit is to defeat extremism, chooses to launch an all-out attack. As Jewish students reveled in the wake a dramatic uncovering of the FOSIS agenda, Murray chose the moment to attack UJS for being “Islamist-cowed” and “alienating”.
UJS did not bow under pressure from FOSIS but made a calculated decision to let nothing prevent this groundbreaking expose, a decision that paid off spectacularly. The fringe event, in front of a large audience of key figures in the student movement, saw the head of FOSIS come under unprecedented attack and the humiliating defeat of the warped ideals the organisation stands for.
The NUS Annual Conference was an incredible success for the Union of Jewish students at every level. Despite opposition from radical left wing groups, motions were adopted to renew the EUMC definition of anti-Semitism, to maintain disaffiliation from the Israel-bashing Stop the War Coalition and to publish NUS guidelines on hate speech. In the meantime this AGM represented another year in which UJS was successful in defeating attempts to pass motions one-sidedly attacking Israel. Whilst our so called ‘friends’ attack UJS, they forget to mention that whilst trade unions across the country have pass resolutions condemning Israel, and some even attempt to boycott the Jewish state, the National Union of Students has maintained an even-handed balanced approached to the conflict, something which can be attributed to the hard working activists of UJS.
It’s a shame Douglas Murray was not at the fringe, he has shown great courage and determination against the rise of extremism in the UK and his frustration is understandable. However, when it came down to the wire UJS had a clear judgment call to make; to uninvite Douglas Murray or let the fringe be cancelled. In the end UJS made the decision that nothing would prevent FOSIS being exposed for what they really were; a decision that paid off with the kind of success even we could not have dreamed of.
Were the event to have flopped then perhaps one could have understood Murray’s reaction, but in a spectacular success FOSIS were successfully exposed on the record for the first time. FOSIS simply had no answer to accusations of inviting anti-semitic, homophobic hate-speakers onto university campuses. Ultimately the revelations will help Mr Murray in his continued battle against extremism, making his attack even more surreal.
Douglas Murray has played an invaluable and sometimes thankless role in fighting extremism in the United Kingdom, and is to be applauded. Now is not the time to make enemies of friends and attack someone who has stood steadfast with British Jewry over his entire career. Nonetheless the point remains, when it comes to student issues, the elected leadership of 9,000 Jewish students knows best. This judgment call was vindicated, and was just one example in a long history of UJS successes in standing up for Jewish Students on campuses. We have enough enemies already, without seeing those that stand with us attack us in public.
Douglas Murray’s decision to seemingly turn against the UJS is confusing, and that it follows the most successful unravelling of FOSIS hate speech in memory, truly remarkable. After another NUS AGM in which extremism was defeated, and Israel was approached in a balanced manner, our activists deserved more than to wake up to an all-out attack from our so-called ‘friends’.
Thanks for this guest post Oliver.
I’m generally a big fan of Douglas Murray, as I have said before on this blog. I don’t think his response to this episode was appropriate though. I am pleased to give the UJS a chance to put their side of the story.
Douglas’s hurt feelings are palpable and understandable. But I hear over and over what an intimidating time it can be for Jewish students on campus nowadays. Like Douglas I am neither Jewish nor a student, but I think empathy will get us all further forward than finger-wagging.
Respect to Douglas Murray generally, though!
UJS’s decision to cancel Douglas Murray – having invited him! – was awful.
Everyone knows that FOSIS invites extremists. Look at their Conference in Manchester some 6 weeks ago when they invited Tamimi, among others.
An invitation given to a great non-Jewish friend like Douglas should have been honoured. To then dress up the backword as some kind of “strategic” move – to expose FOSIS, when everyone knows about FOSIS – is simply disingenuous.
It is similar to the decision to dishonour the invitation to Benny Morris to speak to Cambridge Israel society a few months ago. UJS was less involved in this but the faulty logic was much the same.
Thanks. Very interesting to read, and I am glad it went well.
I would still question how the UJS statement can say that “the decision to cancel Douglas Murray was not taken to appease FOSIS” whilst also mentioning “the refusal of FOSIS to share a platform with Douglas Murray”. It seems clear that you wanted the delegates to be able to challenge FOSIS, and thus you *did* appease them when they insisted you cancel Douglas’ invitation.
Whether you then had a productive conference session or not, you ultimately did cave to pressure from FOSIS to uninvite Douglas. How could you then be surprised that Douglas and others might disagree with this? It’s not a question of being out of touch, as Mark Wolfson and Carly McKenzie so publicly accused on Facebook and Twitter. It’s a plain difference of opinion over whether it is ever right to appease extremists, especially when you feel you’ll get something you want if you do.
Douglas did not make Jewish students his enemies. If now is “not the time to make enemies of friends and attack someone who has stood steadfast with British Jewry over his entire career”, why on earth did Wolfson post on his facebook page that Melanie Philips, Douglas Murray and Steven Pollard, three respected journalists and friends of the community, were ‘royally out of touch’ and less sophisticated at ‘political messaging’ than the student leadership of UJS? By doing so, UJS ran the risk of making enemies of these three figures, rather than having a polite disagreement with them.
I am pleased you feel your conference went well. I personally disagree with bowing to extremist demands such as FOSIS’ in this case, however.
I must reiterate. Douglas Murray is a steadfast friend of the Jewish and pro-Israel community. In this case he was wrong to express his feelings about this episode in an overly dramatic and public way. I completely empathize with how Douglas Murray might have felt with the action that was taken, and he did nothing to deserve what may have come across as an insult. Ultimately, however, UJS did what was right for Jewish students.
This debate should remain cordial. It is my opinion that Douglas Murray is not remotely out of touch but a key figure in the fight against extremism. It is my sincere hope that Jewish students and Douglas Murray can look to put this dispute behind them.
how is it right for jewish students on campus to not be defended by an excellent speaker in Douglas Murray, the taking back of an invitation is a joke and in my opinion makes the Union of Jewish Students look particularly amateurish.
and it wasn’t perceived as an insult it was an insult.
you say you want to keep the debate cordial but by senior UJS campaigns people calling douglas murray out of touch and going further by including Stephen Pollard(another good friend -and thus pissing off the editor of the JC never a good idea has been anything but cordial, so do you really expect the other side to be cordial. UJS have scored an own goal, yes the fringe event was a success but this was despite not because of UJS organisation, it would have been even better if douglas murray would have been allowed to speak.
You miss the point entirely. The fringe would not have improved with Douglas Murray because it would not have happened.
Interesting discussion.
Oliver, why would it not have happened? And if his presence would have made it impossible, why was he ever invited?
the current leadership of UJS is soft.
the sooner they are replaced the better.
Dear Jonathon,
FOSIS would not have participated in the debate if Douglas Murray was in attendance. This was something not made clear to UJS until very late.
It was deemed, however, more important to take the opportunity to put FOSIS on the spot and expose their extremism, though Murray would have played a key part of the debate.
I understand many in the community will see this as capitulation to FOSIS but in the end the decision was taken that it was most important to expose FOSIS than to not let the event go ahead.
Being on the other side of many prominent members of the Jewish and Zionist community is something new to me. I opposed the decision in Cambridge to cancel Benny Morris and have spent my entire university career fighting organizations like FOSIS. I’m also personally an admirer of Douglas Murray.
In this case, however, I’m convinced the right decision was made.
Hi all,
Firstly, I would state that personally, I know Melanie and Douglas. I also happen to think that Douglas Murray is one of the greatest friends the Jewish community has, and in a personal capacity I am honoured to count him as a close friend/mentor.
Professionally, at 10pm on the day Conference closed, Douglas instigated a co-ordinated attack on UJS. This was a successful, productive Conference for us, yet this has been dominated by egotistic behaviour. I respect Douglas, I like Douglas, I think that he is a vital component in our conflict with Hate Speech on campus – but on this matter, Douglas was wrong, and if he is going to publicly attack us through Standpoint, The Daily Telegraph and the JC (three highly influential publications) then he cannot expect us to remain silent.
Moreover, knowing Douglas, I have a feeling he would have been disappointed had I done nothing. Friends are allowed to disagree, and Jonathan S (another person for whom I hold a deep respect and admiration), if you could not recognise a bit of banter on facebook, then perhaps I overestimated you.
would it not have shown Fosis up if they had not attended the event due to douglas murray presence
Perhaps, but not nearly to the same extent as showing them up through having them ripped apart in front of everyone that matters in student politics.
EUJS has weighed in to support UJS – http://www.eujs.org/news/article/98
I personally think that Douglas referring to Carly as ‘that girl from UJS’ is grossly demeaning and unnecessary. UJS was always at its best when it was challanging the community. In 1993 it lead the way after Oslo with a signing of common agreement with GUPS. It also lead the way on fighting homophobia in the Jewish community and continues to do so.
I find that Douglas often blurs the line between engaged Muslims and those who are islamists and on what is a sensitive issue the bulldozer attitude is a disaster. I personally don’t blame FOSIS for not wanting to speak on a stage with him after he has tried to get them shut down for two years.
If you read oli’s article it is just not true that UJS cancalled him to please FOSIS but felt it would make a greater effect on 200 students to have FOSIS answer the charges put to them by UJS and the other speakers rather then hear them demonised and absent. According to Carly’s account http://www.ujs.org.uk/news/427/ujs-fringe-at-nus-conference-2010/ it seems to have worked.
Sure Douglas is pro israel and a friend to the jewish community but i fear for us as a community when we use Douglas as an advocacy trainer (we have done this on at least two separate occasions).
@ Jonathan H:
I do not think that UJS is under any illusion that in a similar situation FOSIS would act in the same way, or as was seen in the Bennie Morris example you used, are unlikely to repay any favours. UJS is not like FOSIS, and can actually be the bigger person in order to try and create change, and not just play the game.
The aim of the fringe event was not just to expose FOSIS as you claim. It was an ideal arena to raise the issues on which the two groups disagree and to tackle problems directly. This would have been quite hard to do had FOSIS not been there at all!
This whole situation has shown that UJS care more about doing the right thing for Jewish students, who they represent, rather than pleasing their so called friends (although they would of course do both together whenever possible). I don’t see how anyone can honestly say that this is the wrong decision to make.
oliver, i have to say that your attitude on this issue is a tad arrogant.
you are especially arrogant when you state that: “Ultimately, however, UJS did what was right for Jewish students.” – as if you have some power above all others to judge what this is.
your treatment of douglas murray was contemptible, not least because it was rude. i don’t think it benefits any group of people, jewish students or otherwise, to be represented by such an act of discourtesy.
but you are most arrogant of all to contend that some poxy discussion attended by a minuscule percentage of the nation’s students will have any bearing at all on the future standing or behavious of fosis.
just because you believed fosis to come across as ridiculous, that is not to say that they and their supporters concur with your assessment. and the vast majority of students won’t even be aware of the debate.
if rationality was the only yardstick for success, fosis would never have had any followers to begin with. clearly they are appealing to people through irrational means, so your attempts to defeat them through confrontation borne of rational argument are futile.
joel -
I personally don’t blame FOSIS for not wanting to speak on a stage with him after he has tried to get them shut down for two years.
why not? i’m not the biggest fan of douglas murray (i agree with you on the issue of blurring the lines), but i do applaud him for not shirking any platform. so long as his speech is not restricted, he will appear with anyone, and when he does so he speaks the truth as he knows it. so what are fosis afraid of?
i fear for us as a community when we use Douglas as an advocacy trainer (we have done this on at least two separate occasions).
i fear for us as a community when we use joel braunold as an advocacy trainer… but hey ho, this isn’t the ussr, people are permitted to have different opinions and to school others in these views
It also lead the way on fighting homophobia in the Jewish community and continues to do so.
well if this is true, it has certainly escaped my attention!
As I see it the UJS have missed that they owe Mr Murray an apology for their discourtesy, while Murray has missed that these issues are bigger than him. I expect FOSIS is enjoying this.
FYI, I’m switching comment moderation back on overnight.
Dear Naomi,
I find you calling me arrogant appalling, especially as you claim to care so much about rudeness. Calling UJS arrogant for claiming they have the authority to represent the Jewish students that elected them is outrageous.
And by they way whilst student issues might not matter to you, having NUS pass hate speech regulations for the first ever time WILL have an effect on hate speech on campus and thus the welfare of Jewish students.
P.s If you’re going to make brazen statements against Jewish students for acting on behalf of their fellow students please use you’re full name.
Look, Douglas is a talented and busy guy with a full diary. He must have blocked out two days for UJS, including travel to Gateshead and back. And then they cancelled him with a week’s notice. You just don’t do that to an invited guest. It is crass, rude and ignorant. The fact that he is a precious non-Jewish friend would make it even worse if that were possible. So waht if FOSIS would not have shown. Let them be seen to be against Douglas’ right of free speech.
Oliver, Douglas was absolutely justified in writing what he did. It is not an “attack” and if you invite him again he will accept as if nothing had happened.
It is fair criticism. Take it, and move on.
Jonathan,
There is a difference between a disagreement amongst friends and a public attack. And have no doubts being labelled “cow-towing” to islamism is a horrid accusation. The fact that he is non-Jewish is irrelevant – I judge people by their convictions not their religion.
I’ve never once labelled Murray anything but a friend. But, no, I will not “take it and move on” because the right decision was made. With the greatest respect you are not a Jewish student and nor do you live with the decisions UJS makes. I respect what you do for the community but UJS has many roles, of which Jewish welfare on campus is the most important. At every level every decision made was with this in mind.
I’m annoyed at again having to repeat that Douglas has a right to feel annoyed but that does not make his reaction – which was timed to interfere as much as possible – the right thing to do.
And I’ll add that the European Union of Jewish Students have released a press statement backing up UJS’s decisions.
This is a comment a made on Douglas Murray’s article/attack on the Telegraph. I thought as everyone else got to have a say here, I should as well…
“Douglas,
I have so far in life been unlucky not to have enjoyed hearing you speak in person, but have always enjoyed reading your pieces, much of which I agree with. I further know of the great work you do for both society at large and the Jewish Community, of which I am a part. On this matter, however, I think you are mistaken.
Forgetting what I believe on this matter, you commented above that “Though FOSIS are the problem, as you know…” as part of your conversation with UJS. If you truly believe that FOSIS are the problem, then talking and scrutinising FOSIS is the best way to move forwards.
As someone who was lucky enough to actually attend the fringe event at NUS National Conference this year, I believe that having FOSIS co-host the event was the best way of running the event. As an audience, alongside both Adam and Rashad, we questioned Nabil (the FOSIS representative), with him skilfully dodging answering questions and accusations head on.
If you had been at the event (which would have thus only have been hosted by NUS and UJS) and FOSIS had not, would we have had this chance? Would we have been able to show them up for not being able to answer our questions?
I agree that the situation was not ideal, but from the perspective of UJS and Jewish Students in general, we have access to hearing your opinion and questioning you, but having the chance to actually have a representative of FOSIS to challenge and question was one that I doubt we will have again anytime soon.
When you comment “one wonders what they think FOSIS will ever do in return” in relation to UJS cancelling your invitation, I feel like you highlight the lack of knowledge you have of UJS. I have been a member of, and have worked with, UJS for nearly 3 years now, and they have always shown the utmost respect and moral direction in everything they do. The decisions made by UJS are, in the first instance, are based on their own values, not what they will achieve in return from others. As a union that defends the welfare of people attacked by the speakers in question, UJS had the duty to revoke your invitation in return for the opportunity to publicly question the motives and actions of FOSIS. I do not represent all UJS members, but if they had chosen to loose this opportunity to question FOSIS in order to have you speak, they would not have been acting in my interests.
Never mind the miracle that I saw. Who would have thought that UJS and FOSIS would hold such a joint event? I, alongside many other Jewish Students, hope that this is a positive change in the relationship between UJS and FOSIS.”
I find it very sad and bitterly ironic that the vast majority who have chosen to criticise this decision are not students, nor were they even in Gateshead for the event, nor does the decision have any effect on their ability to sit behind a computer and patronise the younger members of the community; those who have been democratically elected by Jewish students and are at the forefront of protecting Jewish welfare on campus. Yet the further irony is that it is those who elected the current leadership team who are defending the decision!! But of course, the elders of the community think they know better than those who have been elected to do a job.
Fantastic piece of writing as always Olly! Keep it up!
I would like to begin by recognising and accepting the argument that it is was discourteous for Mr Murray to be uninvited at the last moment, and I am sure UJS have profusely apologised for withdrawing his invitation. However, sadly this is not the key component of the criticism directed against UJS. The key issue raised, is that UJS are somewhat lacklustre in the fight for Jewish students and that they are incapable of taking tough decisions.
As a Jewish student, I would like to fundamentally disagree with this to its core. The manner in which UJS handled the situation showed an incredible amount of bravery and a commitment to its principles of ensuring that the interests of Jewish students were primary above all else.UJS took the calculated decision, that it was more important to promote Jewish students interests, through engaging FOSIS directly, and challenging their continued commitment to hate speech than to have close friend Douglas Murray essentially preach to the converted. To tell a close friend like Douglas Murray he could not attend showed a tremendous degree of guts. This is why I find the notion that UJS are cowardly to be utterly absurd.
The event provided a great opportunity for the panel, NUS President Wes Streeting and the audience to directly tell FOSIS that the manner in which they conduct themselves is grossly inappropriate and that the speakers they associate with are no less than a disgrace. This was achieved by levying criticism upon FOSIS in an environment in which there was no hiding place. The panel pushed the FOSIS representative Nabil Ahmed to such an extent, that at times he appeared to justify why people support suicide bombings. Furthermore he was backed into a ridiculous argument in defending FOSIS speakers, stating that they are justifiable because they are capable of selling many books – this bringing an obvious parallel with the mass sale of Mein Kampf and did his argument no good in the eyes of the audience.
The event took an important step in fighting hate speech and extremism on campus an agenda that I believe all of us here and Douglas Murray subscribe too. The UJS event told FOSIS unequivocally that the speakers they laud are not acceptable, and cause great discomfort and outrage to many students, both Jewish and not.
The criticism against UJS for holding a successful, innovating and necessary event at the expense of Douglas Murray speaking is shocking and mistaken. Ultimately, the courage of UJS to not invite Douglas Murray and risk this very backlash, allowed an important event to take place, one that proved to be a fantastic forum in the fight against hate speech on campus. This week UJS achieved a huge amount from the NUS conference, it continuously showed strength and delivered high above all expectations, all for the young Jewish community of this country, and instead of criticising and condemning UJS you should be applauding them for their remarkable work.
dear oliver,
everyone knows that the ujs elections are simply a matter of who can get the most of their friends to vote for them, and not a mandate for representing jewish students on issues such as this. most jewish students don’t even vote in the elections. this is true of nearly all student politicians – they’re in it for their own self-aggrandizement and not to represent the actual student body, which has no interest in student politics.
i’m going to guess that the nus regulations will, contrary to your claims, have very little effect on hate speech on campus. in my many years of being a student, no platform rules were enforced when it came to the white far right but not for islamists. i doubt anything will change from an nus conference vote.
your delusions of grandeur as a student politician are underlined by your statement that: “Perhaps, but not nearly to the same extent as showing them up through having them ripped apart in front of everyone that matters in student politics.”
the point you are missing is that actually no one matters in student politics, but in order to please these nobodies you’ve right royally cheesed off douglas murray. so now he’s telling the world how pathetically ujs behaved, and, quite frankly, the situation is embarrassing.
Oliver
“The fact that he is non-Jewish is irrelevant – I judge people by their convictions not their religion.”
It is completely relevant. One vocal supporter who is not Jewish is worth 20 of us. Chas, Lorna, Robin, Douglas, Nick Cohen – they chose it, it costs them a lot and we must respect that and nurture it.
“You are not a Jewish student and nor do you live with the decisions UJS makes.”
Oliver, that argument does not do you justice. Studenthood is not some kind of disconnected island, separate from the rest of society. Universities are a centre of antisemitism and that has externalities for us all. At the hostile meetings I go to, to speak out and bear witness – at SOAS, Goldmiths and UCL for example – there are plenty of non-current students there and the discourse has repercussions way beyond the campus.
Students want “support and advice” (not your phrase, someone else’s). But when you don’t like the advice, you jump on it. You can’t have it both ways.
“nor do you live with the decisions UJS makes”
That is just not true. What happens at universities affects all of us. If Benny Morris is now invited by the ZF (for example) the anti’s will use the Cambridge precedent in their opposition to the meeting. Last year the Bloomsbury Thetare cancelled a ZF event, because of anti-Israel activism on campus (the Bloomsbury is owned by UCL).
Jewish students are not some kind of disconnected island. The sooner UJS realises that the better.
“the European Union of Jewish Students have released a press statement backing up UJS’s decisions”
So what? That doesn’t make it right to have cancelled Douglas.
Jonathan, I believe you have missed the essential point of Oli’s article and why UJS took the tough decision of cancelling Douglas Murray. The core aspect of UJS is to place Jewish students interests above all else. The event granted the opportunity for Jewish students concern’s to be voiced and heard, not just directly to FOSIS but to the surrounding audience in which there were many people that could potentially be “worth 20 more than us” sitting and learning. The opportunity to scrutinise FOSIS in this format was vital to not only telling FOSIS their speakers are outrageous but to explain to the wider community why Jewish students are, unfortunately, so often in outrage with the manner in which FOSIS operate. This is another very important outcome of the event, as in the minds of many that left, their eyes were opened to the fact that the Universities they represent can at times by a frightening place for their Jewish peers.
Therefore the fact that it was rude to withdraw Douglas’s invitation, or that it left a bad taste in his mouth is somewhat irrelevant. I personally would have loved to have heard him speak first hand, i often read his articles. However, there are occasions when the larger picture must be seen, and the greater good must be strived for, and it was necessary to cancel Douglas for the benefit to Jewish students. More was achieved by having FOSIS placed in an environment in which they were continuously scrutinised, then to have missed this opportunity as UJS did not to want to offend a friend.
What concrete effect to the UJS people here think this whole event will have had? This is a genuine and open question. I ask as I want to know how they seem so sure it is OK to upset friends for the chance to show up our enemies. What actual positive effect will it have had, ‘ripping’ FOSIS to shreds in front of ‘everyone that matters in student politics’? Do they think anything will change?
(by the way, don’t *all* students matter in student politics, or is it just those with the titles and a sabbatical year sitting in an office?)
Jonathan,
I’m sorry but you completely skew the issue. No-one doubts that our non-Jewish friends often have a far greater effect in winning hearts and minds, but the point is Douglas Murray’s steadfast support of Zionism is not threatened by this event because I assume his support is based on his convictions for the Zionist cause and nothing else.
Naomi, I’m sorry but the accusations that the elected Jewish students leadership is irrelevant because they’re somehow elected by a few of their friends is disingenuous and outrageously insulting. Elections are held in 6 cities and attended by many hundreds of Jewish students. To claim that a group of adults, few of whom have been elected to anything, have a greater idea of how to deal with student issues is ridiculous.
I’m sorry that you feel that students wanting to retain control over their own issue is somehow arrogance. In my opinion the only arrogance is the patronization of assuming students can’t manage their own affairs. And by the way having NUS pass hate speech regulations WILL effect student welfare. In the future any union affiliated to NUS will not be able to invite hate speakers onto campus, perhaps something that will save Jonathan having to go out into the night with leaflets a couple of times.
The facts remain that whilst trade unions around the country pass anti-Israel motions, NUS DOES NOT. With respect, you are in no position to be dictating how to campaign successfully. At a time when organizations like the ZF should be congratulating UJS for making brave decisions and running effective campaigns, you choose to publicly attack.
But you know what? The facts speak for themselves
Great post Olly! As a Jewish student, I commend UJS for putting my welfare as their priority and hope that they will continue to do so in the future.
oliver, don’t be so naive. fosis are not going to stop inviting, or hosting, these speakers. who gets to decide which individuals are “hate speakers” anyway?
i was a student up until two months ago so am not observing this issue from a great distance. i am well aware that student politicians have no mandate. i hope no one in ujs truly believes that they have been elected on merit, when the reality is they just rounded up their friends.
it is a bit rich that you accuse me of being “in no position to be dictating how to campaign successfully”, when you’ve made such a cock up with this disinvitation – hardly a successful campaign. why did you invite him in the first place if you couldn’t guarantee that he could speak?
joseph –
The manner in which UJS handled the situation showed an incredible amount of bravery
the term “incredible bravery” has never been so woefully misapplied. telling a speaker they can’t attend involves lifting a telephone and saying a few words. not bravery of any order, and certainly not incredible.
than to have close friend Douglas Murray essentially preach to the converted
then why did they invite murray in the first place, if he was just to preach to the converted? if he was so disposable, why waste his time?
To tell a close friend like Douglas Murray he could not attend showed a tremendous degree of guts
it doesn’t take guts, just arrogance and delusions
The UJS event told FOSIS unequivocally that the speakers they laud are not acceptable
but they won’t listen or care, so what has it actually achieved?
the surrounding audience in which there were many people that could potentially be “worth 20 more than us” sitting and learning
i doubt it
explain to the wider community why Jewish students are, unfortunately, so often in outrage with the manner in which FOSIS operate
why did fosis have to be there for this? invite them, sure. but if they refuse to turn up because of the presence of murray, that’s their problem.
it was necessary to cancel Douglas for the benefit to Jewish students
i think it is a gross mistake to assume that the only, or even primary, victims of islamic hate speech on campus are jewish students. when the christmay day bomber boarded his flight, his fellow passengers weren’t jewish students, but they were his potential victims. the whole of society, and the wider jewish community, are the victims of radicalization of muslim students.
Naomi,
I’ve gone from believing you’re engaging in a legitimate political belief to realizing you’ve just lost the plot. You just don’t seem interested in listening and you have no respect for the right of students to deal with their own affairs.
FOSIS will not stop trying to invite these speakers, but SU’s will in the future not be allowed to host any of these events, ensuring the welfare of Jewish students.
oliver,
dismissing people who don’t agree with you as having “lost the plot” is probably not the best way to defend yourself against accusations of arrogance.
here’s another helpful piece of advice – if you actually read what i wrote, you will notice that i refer specifically to points that you made. this is how you can tell that i WAS listening to you, but just happened to think you were wrong.
i think you’re being very premature in thinking student unions will cease to hold these events. just because you accuse a speaker of being a hatemonger, that is not to say that the union will agree with you. unions have their own agendas and they don’t coincide very strongly with that of ujs. and even if a union does refuse to host a speaker, the organisers will just find another location to hold the event in. so what has really been achieved?
who knows, maybe you just weren’t brought up very well, because i just can’t understand why you think the treatment of murray by ujs is justified. i’m certainly no fan of his, but it was very kind of him to agree to attend your event, and to rescind the invite is just plain inexcusable rudeness. no ifs, no buts.
Naomi,
UJS made a tough judgment call to take a difficult action that might have caused offense, in order to produce the best possible result for Jewish students.
I don’t care much for your points of view because you’re just a pair of hands at a keyboard, lacking enough conviction to even give your name.
Ultimately UJS’s choice has been vindicated by the overwhelming shows of support from across the Jewish student community, which is, lest us forget, the community they are there to represent.
Well, I congratulate you on your success on the night, but, that said, I do have a concern or two.
You say: “Douglas Murray’s decision to seemingly turn against the UJS is confusing”
I can’t speak for Douglas of course, but I wonder if he might see the accommodation of FOSIS as just one small battle lost/won (depending on your point of view) in a far larger war?
You may well have won that battle – and I do honestly congratulate you on that – but this type of intimidation is likely to be happening on other campuses, and if the nature of Islamic extremism is anything to go by, may affect Jewish and Gay students alike – and I think we must take ALL those groups affected into account here.
Will FOSIS, having had a success themselves (the disinvitation of Douglas Murray) perhaps try the same tactic elsewhere and win? Perhaps you had particularly eloquent speakers and your success may not translate across the board? If FOSIS can ‘win’ by having Douglas dis-invited, they may well continue to use this tactic and other campuses may not come out quite as well as you did.
I do admire Douglas Murray and recently listened to him being interviewed by a Canadian radio station on YouTube. He had agreed to a debate with Anjem Choudary but, en route to the venue was informed that it was a set-up and had turned nasty. He still went and the fracas that ensued on the pavement (he didn’t get as far as the platform itself)gave waiting journalists a shock. I believe one said that he never thought he’d see such a thing on the streets of London. And of course, this incident made the Canadian airwaves. So, in this instance Douglas didn’t win the battle per se, but he certainly affected the war because far more people were given an insight into Anjem’s crowd than would have happened had the debate proceeded or had Douglas backed down and not attended.
I hope you can see that I’m looking at the larger picture here – but perhaps you have already considered how your success might be translated across the spectrum of other universities.
Finally, I don’t think Douglas’ ego has been bruised – he strikes me as being bigger than that. Nor do I think he is a ‘so-called’ friend. He is a friend.
oliver,
why do you want to know my full name? that’s just creepy. i obviously don’t want potential employers to google me and be bombarded with every blog post i’ve ever commented on. that’s just common sense. i would advise you to stop using your full name on blogs, too.
if you’re so opposed to the idea of a pair of hands and a keyboard, then you’ve totally missed the point of blogging. seems to me strange that you would choose to use this medium to put across your point of view in the first place, especially as you seem so adverse to having people disagree with you in the comment section.
apart from it being highly unlikely that you actually have any evidence for overwhelming shows of support from across the jewish community, what would it matter if you did? just because you find enough people foolish enough to cheer your bad behaviour, that doesn’t make rudeness condonable.
Fair play to you Oliver. As I see it Murray’s approach to certain subject areas [namely Islam for one] makes him a liability for the community.
Naomi,
I’m done debating these issues with you, you’re so out of touch with the issue that it’s just pointless.
Penny,
I agree with your post mainly. I personally believe the success we had will replicate across the board. I should also make it clear that this will not be a precedent; though I am not in a position to make such decisions myself, I can say with 99% confidence UJS will not be canceling any speaker ever on the whim of FOSIS or anyone else.
“SU’s will in the future not be allowed to host any of these events, ensuring the welfare of Jewish students.”
1. Are you saying that speakers such as Tamimi, Galloway, Ben White, Suzanne Weiss, Bongani Matsuku, Jeff Halper and Daud Abdulla will not be hosted on SU premises?
2. And if you are, so what? They will just be given rooms which do not belong to SUs. When Halper and Karmi spoke at Goldsmiths recently they were not in a SU room. And same when Matsuku spoke at SOAS.
The only thing that can stop antisemitic speakers at universities is this group:
http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/Newsroom/Media-Releases/Pages/Update1workinggroup.aspx
And you really believe this was worth cancelling Douglas for?
Oliver,
“I should also make it clear that this will not be a precedent”
I’m glad to hear that. Inviting guest speakers to support your case and then dis-inviting them because FOSIS (or whoever)won’t take part is not necessarily boxing clever in the long term. Not least because the speakers themselves may start to decline the invitations – although I think that is unlikely to be due to pique or ego! Busy people, particularly those engaged in Douglas’ line of work, cannot be expected to schedule appointments, book or arrange travel and possibly accommodation, if there is a known risk that the offer will be withdrawn. I have no idea how Douglas goes about his work but it may also be worth remembering that having scheduled a debate to support, say, the UJS, another organisation will have had to go without his help.
If this continued to happen and supporters find themselves unable to speak – as could happen if FOSIS continually win this part of the battle – the minority groups who are intimidated will eventually find themselves far more vulnerable than they are at the moment.
Whatever support or criticism you have had, Oliver, there could be a positive outcome here if the Jewish, and perhaps the Gay, community bodies across UK universities could get together (perhaps Douglas and others might attend to give a little insight and advice?) discuss this issue and come up with some constructive ideas/policies and/or mutually supportive way forward for the future that will ensure long-term benefits for all concerned.
Jonathan,
With respect, I think by you grouping people like Ben White, Jeff Halper and someone like George Galloway, a democratically elected member of Parliament, into the same group of ‘Hate Speakers’ as people like Tamimi, Masuku and Daud Abdullah, shows how out of touch you are with the situation, and feeds into the hands of those who claim we are trying to stifle academic debate.
It’s YOU who is out of touch. White and Halper regularly espouse “OneState” which is antisemitic.
http://www.thejc.com/blogpost/liberal-judaism-hosts-antisemitic-speaker
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/lies-damn-lies-and-the-apartheid-analogy/
If you are a student “Alex” (you do not give your full name) who is proud that the NUS has again agreed to adopt the EUMC Definition then **you should know that because it’s in the Definition.**
Galloway wrote this:
http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/georgegalloway/2009/12/dark-echoes-of-holocaust.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDailyRecord%2FGeorgeGalloway+%28The+Daily+Record+-+George+Galloway%29
To which my response (published) was:
“George Galloway plumbed new depths of mendacity and nastiness (even for him) with his column on 28 December. Recently Professor Hiss, a forensic scientist in Israel, has said that in 1990 body parts were removed from corpses without the permission of relatives. When precisely similar news emerged about the Alder Hey hospital in Liverpool, balanced newspaper articles were written about how to avoid a recurrence. Galloway by contrast in the case of Israel makes outrageous comparisons with the Holocaust and suggests that the story that appeared in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet in the summer was proved by this development. That is complete nonsense. The Aftonbladet article – a blood libel – suggested Israel was systematically murdering Palestinians and removing their body parts, with an innuendo that it was for financial gain.
Galloway should be ashamed of himself. If he had any decency he would apologise – now.”
==> Now tell me that is not hate speech!
oliver-
I’m done debating these issues with you, you’re so out of touch with the issue that it’s just pointless.
sounds like the words of someone who has lost the argument. i’ve just finished been a jewish student for seven years but according to you i’m out of touch with being a jewish student??? and as i and jonathan have pointed out, this issue affects a much wider group of people than just students anyhow
alex-
hitler was democratically elected. what does that prove? it’s the words that come out of your mouth that determine whether you are a hate speaker, not whether you are elected or not
Naomi,
George Galloway hates Israel, but I hate the current government of China. Has he ever said that he would become a suicide bomber? Has he ever glorified suicide bombings? Has he ever said its legitimate to attack synagogues as Masuku did? You cannot compare them.
Likewise Jeff Halper and Ben White they see Israel as being an apartheid state and they are entitled to that belief. Does that lead Jewish students to fear for their welfare due to intimidation and threats? No. Do we disagree with what they say? Yes. Is that hate speech? Not in my name.
Besides, even if you did count Galloway as a hate speaker, it would be INCREDIBLY hard to get him banned under any rules or jurisdiction because he is an elected representative of however many thousand people he represents and the day we don’t let somebody speak because we disagree with what they say will be a very very dark day for British democracy.
And before you bring it up, the BNP is a completely different situation. There is evidence provided by the police that wherever the BNP speak, there is an increase in physical and verbal attacks on communities and that is the main reason many universities no platform them; they are putting student welfare as their priority. This simply is not the case with Galloway.
Its time people woke up and started realising these speakers who we don’t like because we disagree with them are not going to go away.
Jonathan Hoffman couldn’t be more *in* touch with these issues.
Completely right, Chas. Jonathan Hoffman couldn’t be more in touch with these issues.
I know that UJS is run by students, and that that means they people running it are often young and relatively inexperienced. But it seems from the above that many of them could benefit from learning some respect for others, and also learning when to concede a point rather than arrogantly and stubbornly carry on a fight for the sake of it (or give up because the person they are arguing with is ‘out of touch’ / anonymous / not a student / insert other random excuse here).
As “naomi” said – Hitler was elected. And if Galloway loses in Poplar and Limehouse on 6 May it seems that would make a difference for you. That’s a nonsense. It’s what he says that counts, not whether he’s elected.
Alex you have no idea what “free speech” means. “Free speech” does not mean the right to speak at the Oxford Union Society or SOAS or any other University. It is perfectly consistent with free speech not to give someone a particular platform.
When I tried to get the Oxford Union Society to rescind the invitations to Irving and Griffin …
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/special_reports/?content_id=7659
… in 2007 I saw how much time Jewish students were spending on the campaign. They are not at university for that, and it is time Vice Chancellors saw that and banned the speakers I listed and more.
Read the Public Order Act – they contravene that:
“A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting
words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is
threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if-
(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or
(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is
likely to be stirred up thereby.”
I haven’t been a student for more years than I care to remember, nor do I have Jonathan’s wealth of experience, but what I do have is a decade in politics to refer back to, which is nothing if not strategic. Anyway, feel free to tell me I’m wrong – if nothing else I’ve developed a skin:-))
The overall impression I’m getting here is that students are necessarily scattered across the universities but seem not to have a coherent strategy for discussing, countering, dealing with or even agreeing upon the threats they face. It appears to be taking a bit of a scattergun approach. By contrast I’d imagine FOSIS et al are pretty sorted in this respect.
Jonathan,
I didn’t see your response before i responded to Naomi so apologies for that
The way I personally interpret the EUMC definition and the way i believe Student Unions interpret it is that with regard to the apart about the one-state solution, it is fine to criticise zionism, much as it is fine to criticise socialism. However, when a speaker directly says “The Jews should not have a state” , that is when I believe it becomes anti-semitic. There is a line, albeit a very very thin tenuous one. Christopher Hitchens, the famous atheist for example, disagrees with the fundamental principle of zionism due to his atheistic beliefs, but today is a moderate supporter of Israel. Would that make him anti-semitic and so should we ban him from universities and panels despite him being a word-renowned speaker? Another example, is my flatmate who believes that there should be no such thing as a Jewish state. But he also believes that there should be no such thing as an Islamic State or a Christian State. Should I label him as a hate speaker/anti-semite?
Similarly, and dare I say it, Aron Cohen also vehemently disagrees with zionism, but I feel we would look incredibly bad, and how looking bad is the last thing you want judging by the foundations of your argument regarding the Douglas Murray saga, if we came out and started calling him an anti-semite on this basis!
Therefore, I believe that putting Ben White who believes in a one state solution as a result of the fact that he believes a two state solution is no longer viable (or such was his argument when I heard him speak), in the same group of speaker as Azzam Tamimi is wrong.
With regard to the Galloway article, I can understand where you are coming from and in part I agree with you. But is that hate speech enough for him to be banned from University campuses? Reluctantly, I would say no and we would face a difficult task of proving to University authorities, and even to a court of law in perhaps a libel trial, that what he said amounted to anti-semitism.
I think the ultimate issue what this comes down to is whether the speaker is going to harm student welfare. I highly doubt Christoper Hitchens who denies Jewish right to self determination will make students feel intimidated and open to threats/abuse, but on the basis you suggest we class a hate speaker, he would fit into this category and if we had it your way he would be banned and labelled an anti-semite!
Jonathan,
If Galloway loses his seat I do honestly believe that students who do class him as a hate speaker and can provide strong grounds for why they do, may find it easier to keep him off their campuses.
I am in complete agreement with you about Griffin and Irving. No University should grant them a platform and what happened in Oxford was a disgrace. Furthermore, I must commend you for the work you did on that campaign and all of the other students and organisations who also played a role.
But what I disagree with is putting those two animals in the same category as Ben White and Jeff Halper.
Penny,
You’re actually incredibly incorrect. UJS is truly well organized at every level, and this event was well coordinated and strategically correct.
I’m not a paid up employee of UJS, but I’m extremely confident that UJS did, and continues to make the right decisions, always holding Jewish student policy central.
I for one hope UJS will see more support from certain elements of the Jewish community in the future. To call UJS scattered and disorganized with the incredible record they have is unbelievable and reeks of petty bitterness.
Its imperative that students retain control over their own issues and if you don’t have anything constructive to offer then at least refraining from public attacks would be a start.
I’ll respond later
Anything I could and wish to say would be superfluous of my colleagues above and my own sentiments published on Douglas’ and Melanie’s blog respectively.
I firmly believe that regardless of your experience in (student) politics and/or defending the Jewish/Zionist cause, it is absolutely impossible to reach a fair conclusion of the situation by reading these two blogs alone!
Yes, on the lowest level, I appreciate the logistical sacrifice that Douglas must have taken to allow himself to have had the means to attend the conference and for that I am grateful. However, the way in which he has responded is that of total disarray. Does he mean to put his
(deserved and hard earned) status as a speaker in front of a public gesture to the Muslim student community of fighting a common front and opening a constructive dialogue?
As I have said before, FOSIS as a society do bring in hate-speakers and they are rightly condemned for doing so. However as the acronym will define, they are the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, the voice of the Muslim student community. For any form of diplomatic resolve, UJS has to communicate openly with FOSIS because, sadly, there is no other society that so comprehensively represents the Muslim student community in the NUS environment.
So to Jonathan Hoffman I beg to differ. You say that, “Studenthood is not some kind of disconnected island, separate from the rest of society”. We have no more moderate voice of the Muslim student community. I agree, as my colleagues have duly noted, that they of course cannot represent the voice of every Muslim student. But student hood does tend to have more radical voices speaking out (explaining why the Labour student party were the most right-wing party at the conference and the Socialists and hard-left-ies were out in force). UJS has to contend with this radicalism, overcome it, and look for some way to establish positive ties with other societies; not a hurdle that public societies have to conquer in the “big, wide world”.
Douglas has been a good friend to the Jewish and Zionist cause and for that, I am grateful. But I ask him to put any fragment of ego aside, any annoyance at the gaping hole left in his tight schedule in exchange for realising the pioneering work of UJS to flirt with a radical organisation and jeopardise its own dignity in the hope of a positive relationship.
I have only just caught up with this so a little late in the day to post but needed to vent my spleen at the lamentable decision taken by the UJS .
Several years ago I was fortunate to attend a conference at the Queen Elizabeth Hall the theme of which was the ‘Clash of Civilizations’. The main event was a match up between Douglas Murray and Daniel Pipes versus Ken Livingstone and Salma Yaqoob . I think it was Douglas who came up with the memorable comment that it was not so much a Clash of Civilizations as a Clash between Civilization and Barbarism. The nett result was Livingstone was poorly prepared and he and his cohort were effectively torn apart .
Of course FOSIS did not want Douglas Murray to take part . His depth of knowledge and his skills as an orator would have placed them under a microscope and exposed their extremist views and connections .
The UJS have scored a pyrrhic victory . How long before FOSIS invite their next radical speaker and dyed in the wool antisemite. Jake Witzenfeld ,Cambridge University recently disinvited Benny Morris from speaking at the Jewish Union at the behest of the Islamiic Student Union . Similarly,the UJS will be remembered only for caving in to FOSIS and not much more.
The UJS fail to appreciate that this goes beyond their own insular little world . Their experiences on campus is merely a part of a global picture . It is one that Douglas Murray is well aware of and his participation at the event was part of his own cause to take on radical Islamists at every opportunity .
In summary a big error of judgement by UJS .
Harvey,
With respect your opinion is one clearly formed without knowledge of the facts behind what happened. We all know that Douglas Murray at the event would have played a part in destroying the arguments of FOSIS, but this is irrelevant because they were destroyed anyway. And once again THE EVENT WOULD NOT HAVE TAKEN PLACE if Murray had been there so his effect would have been extremely small.
There are a few key points that Hoffman, Harvey, Namomi et al consistently choose to ignore:
1. UJS knows and regrets the fact this will have caused offense to Murray who is regarded as a friend and I’m sure efforts will be made to bridge this divide.
2. UJS made a decision to ensure the event would go ahead and FOIS would be exposed to certain people in the student leadership that whilst might not be important in the “bigger picture”, are important to drafting hate speech regulations and this student welfare.
3. This will not be a precedent.
4. The decision made was in order to look after UJS constituency, many of whom have already come out to support the decision made.
Harvey,
Whilst I agree with a lot of the issues you have mentioned, it is important to realise that Douglas Murray’s participation in the event would not have been “to take on radical Islamists at every opportunity” because there would have been no ‘radical islamists’ in the room!
Alex
No radical Islamists present.
Really? How can you be assured of that?
Because FOSIS wouldn’t have turned up and they would have told their members and supporters not to turn up. I am even more confident that this would have been the case because The Socialist Worker’s Party and Unite Against Fascism held a similar event at the same time. Instead of ours being the well attended event which got the whole of NUS talking, it would have been theirs.
Alex,
Not being present at the debate ,perhaps you can enlighten me as to how you perceive this as a victory for the UJS .
Do you have absolute written assurances that FOSIS will in future desist from inviting speakers who have an openly antisemitic agenda and that they will be prepared ,in the same way as UJS ,to disinvite those that the UJS consider innamicable to the best interests of the Jewish student body.
Are you assured that FOSIS will in future work with the UJS to end the practice of labelling Israel a Nazi state which is highly inflammatory and any other form of hostile protest which delegitimises Israel even within pre 67 borders.
I fully understand the rationale to engage with those with views that are wholly incompatible with our own. I also understand that the idealism of youth to seek reapproachment tends to gives way to a certain cynicism with age and experience.
From my experience of such matters you are simply ingratiating yourselves to those whose mindsets are inflexible and who are prepared to use any advantage offered to achieve their goal. You merely rolling over to have your tummy tickled.They will not reciprocate.
So what if FOSIS did not show up because of the appearance of Douglas Murray .They simply realised their agenda would not stand up to forensic scrutiny .
Sorry to say it but you are not playing off a level playing field . If you are unable to get down and dirty in order to defend the Jewish Student Body and Israel by using every advantage at your disposal then you are not fulfilling your duty.
By disinviting Douglas Murray you have wasted a tremendous opportunity . Fortunately ,I don’t think he will dwell on it too long understanding the dynamics of the situation.
One wonders whether FOSIS would have been so quick to cancel Galloway at the behest of the UJS.
Harvey,
I believe that Oliver has addressed all the points you have raised effectively and succinctly in his post and his subsequent comments
Alex,
FOSIS do clearly advocate more radical opinions and stances than your average Muslim student. However, they are the only means that UJS can bridge gaps with Muslim students in the NUS sphere.
Benjy, I don’t recall saying anything to the contrary?
Alex,
I apologise since that comment was not directed at you. But as a general point, it’s important to note that.
Regards
That is ok monsieur sanford
chas, any reason my last comment didn’t make it through moderation? worried galloway will sue?
alex -
i have to commend you for engaging earnestly with the arguments here, although i can’t say that i agree with your reasoning.
my main point about galloway, white and halper was that your method of discriminating who is and who isn’t a hate speaker is wrong, in that being elected in no way changes whether the content of your speech constitutes hatred or incitement.
on white and halper, i don’t know enough about these individuals to judge whether they should be no platformed by nus.
on galloway, i would refer you to jonathan hoffmann’s comments
Naomi,
I don’t think I made myself clear enough with regards to Galloway. If i wanted to get Galloway off of my campus because I think he is a hate speaker, I would face a very difficult task of doing so because he is elected. I don’t necessarily agree that this should be the case, however, when he spoke at Birmingham for example, some friends of mine went to the senior authorities airing their concern and while they took their concern on board, their main reasoning for letting the event go ahead was because he was democratically elected.
Whether I agree with this decision or not is a different matter, but that is the way it is and to be honest I can’t see that situation changing. And as i said, the situation with Nick Griffin in the event he does win the Barking and Dagenham seat, would be completely different.
oliver, on the contrary – we’re not ignoring those four points, we just think they’re a nonsense.
point no. 1 is like hitting someone and then justifying hitting that person while simultaneously saying you regret hitting them. you can’t truly regret something unless you wouldn’t take the same course of action if you could turn back time.
on point 2, me and jonathan have explained to you why this regulation is unlikely to actually have any tangible effect on the amount of hate speech muslim student protoradicals are exposed to
i don’t see why anyone should have any faith in your point 3. as you seem to think that it was totally acceptable to mess someone who was doing you a favour around on one occasion, why should anyone agree to give up their time to attend one of your events in the future?
on point 4, i have said that the ujs constituency is probably not well served by being represented by the discourtesy, arrogance and lack of consideration on display by ujs on this occasion.
and to accuse penny of “reeking of bitterness”, when she has offered good humoured, constructive and intelligent comments, shows that the talent you and ujs have in alienating people does not stop with douglas murray.
alex, well if that’s the case, i’m even more sceptical than i was previously about the ability of senior authorities to deal with this issue. i’m sorry your friends were let down like that.
however, doesn’t this just prove my point that the nus regulation will not stop hate speech on campus, if the authorities are not willing to bar anyone who has been elected? and, when it comes to it prob not willing to bar anyone who has been elected onto mcb – eg daud abdullah
Firstly, I disagree with you that George Galloway is a hate speaker. He is an unpleasant, arrogant and self-obsessed individual who hates Zionism, Israel and telling the truth. But is he a hate speaker? I really don’t think he is. I don’t think you can class him in the same bracket as someone like Azzam Tamimi who has OPENLY said he condones suicide bombing. George Galloway gives legitimacy to organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas, but so do officials from Egypt. In the event an official from Egypt wanted to come and give a talk about ‘how the Ancient Egyptians changed the world’ is that a good enough reason to ban them? Furthermore, if Galloway was such a hate speaker, I certainly wouldn’t have expected him to have had his own radio show for as long as he did on TalkSport (I’m not sure if he still has it?), which is one of the most listened to radio channels in the country, especially considering how strict radio broadcasting rules are. (I never thought I would see the day when I defend George Galloway!)
Secondly, the regulations have only just been passed. I think it is way too early to dismiss them. The next step is for Unions to accept them and then it is down to the hard work of organisations like UJS, ZF and The Center for Social Cohesion to work together to ensure they are properly enforced. Will this ban people like Daud Abdullah? Who knows…but at least there is an increased chance (admittedly at this point in time, not a significantly increased chance) that in the near future we will see a clamp down on these hate speakers, particularly with the Universities UK working group which has been set up.
To use a football analogy
It was akin to Edgware Town turning down the services of Rooney on the basis that they had something to prove for themselves
Harvey, I think that is a very unfair thing to say.
UJS’s role is to put its student welfare as its priority and by doing so, to challenge those who wish to harm its welfare.
By not having FOSIS there, how would UJS be doing what it has been elected to do? What would such an event have achieved??
As a United fan I’m glad none of our boys have an ego as big as Douglas Murray’s…
You can say that again. It is all about Douglas Murray for Douglas Murray.
alex, i’m afraid i am not able to discuss galloway with you because he is litigious. i don’t want to bankrupt chas with legal bills. so we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one!
i suppose time will tell who is correct as to whether this new regulation will have any effect. i’m very confident that it won’t, for reasons i have set out, but it seems several people commenting here are confident that it will. i hope i’m proved wrong, but not optimistic that i will be.
There is going to remain a fundamental difference between the point of view of myself and UJS and Jonathan, ‘Naomi’ etc no matter how long this goes on.
Though I retain my point of view that UJS are in the best position to represent student issues, and that the right decision was made for the welfare of Jewish students, I respect your point of view.
We should celebrate that our community can hold such open and frank debate, even if some terms thrown about have become somewhat unsavory.
And with that I sadly do not have the time to respond any further to this debate.
Kindest regards to all.
Well, just in case you return, Oliver, I have to say that your reply to me is somewhat confused.
It is perfectly OK to tell me that I’m wrong. It’s perfectly OK to be wrong – the ones to worry about are those who never are.
However, it’s a little silly to embroider comments to people you have never met with personal terms like ‘petty bitterness’.
However, I think you have completely misunderstood my comments. I’ll try again:
The term ‘scattered’ is, as far as I can tell, perfectly accurate inasmuch as Jewish students (and their representatives) will be scattered across all UK universities. In other words, they don’t all go to the same academic institution. The issue I was pondering was the unity snd agreed directives of the student body across the UK – I wasn’t singling out any one person or any one group of representatives here, Oliver.
The observations I made seem perfectly legitimate given that they were not plucked out of thin air but appeared on Chas’ blog. They were made simply by noting that Douglas was invited then dis-invited; that Jonathan Hoffman – whose knowledge and work has to be one of the leading lights in this field – was told that he was out of touch; that perhaps students are not in agreement as to what defines ‘hate speech’ – and so on. It’s going to be hard to tackle FOSIS across the board in the UK if different people have different perceptions, game play and definitions.
It seemed, therefore, that a coming together of the Jewish student body representatives nationwide might enable you all to have some useful discussion and clear direction in the future with regard to tackling this particular set of issues and all that has arisen from it. I was talking strategy, Oliver, another aspect of my post that I thought I’d made clear. I’m not sure how you’ve made the leap from an objective and defined state of play to an apparent criticism of anyone at all.
Now, perhaps this sort of opportunity is already a given – I don’t know. Perhaps it’s not a worthwhile idea. I would also add that I wrote these comments prior to seeing Jonathan’s link to an institution recently set up to tackle these issues. Anyway, you’re free to reject my view – a simple ‘it wouldn’t work’ or no reply at all would suffice.
You say: “Its imperative that students retain control over their own issues and if you don’t have anything constructive to offer then at least refraining from public attacks would be a start”
Yes, I agree that students should retain control – it’s a vital part of the education process and I can’t see where I – or anyone else – has said otherwise. You came here, Oliver, presenting your views. Not the other way round.
Look, Oliver, it’s not clever to write about Douglas’ ‘attack’ when you, yourself, have an inclination to go into attack mode if someone offers up well-intentioned opinions which don’t match your own. You say that you hope the NUJ will seek support from certain members of the Jewish community but, should that happen, who gets to define the ‘constructive’ part, Oliver? Must all views be tailored in line with, say, your own? Who, in any community, is going to agree to play by those rules? What possible gain is there to hold fast to a pre-conceived view of any given issue, and then invite certain members of the Jewish community to discuss it?
As for ‘public attacks’, you have to learn that if you want to put one side of the argument into the public arena, then you will necessarily get the other side back. It isn’t an echo chamber, Oliver, and another view is not an ‘attack.’
DF: I expect FOSIS is enjoying this.
I expect you are right. I expect Douglas Murray is too – it all plays to his selfdom.
As a current Jewish student, I would like to add my voice to those that question UJS’s tactics in confronting hate speech on campuses nationwide.
UJS is undoubtedly an extremely important organisation and provides invaluable resources for Jewish students across the country. However, I do have many reservations about the organisation’s policy in confronting anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism on campus. Without wishing to comment on the story in question, I have long felt a sense of frustration at UJS’s reluctance to combat anti-Zionist hate speech on campus, seemingly out of a desire to avoid antagonising Islamic societies and upsetting the balance.
I feel that UJS is very eager to campaign on issues where it will encounter very little resistance, such as against the BNP, but is more reluctant to rock the boat when it comes to campaigning for Israel and against anti-Zionism. Last year, when faced at my university with a proposed Student Union boycott of Israeli products in the aftermath of the Gaza conflict, UJS offered very limited assistance with our anti-boycott campaign and consequently we were forced to seek help from other Jewish organisations. Interestingly enough, the only speakers who came to the university during the whole academic year to argue the case for Israel were Jonathan Hoffman and Douglas Murray
I certainly feel that the political leadership of UJS is not sufficiently accountable for its decisions and that more Jewish students should be consulted before making important decisions that will have a widespread impact.
In addition, after reading some of the comments left by the author of the piece, I am quite disgusted by their contemptuous tone and intellectual vacuity. Individuals such as Jonathan Hoffman and Douglas Murray are on the frontline, leading the fight against anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in this country and are deserving of far more respect than the author has afforded them in his correspondence. He certainly does not represent the opinions of all Jewish students!
James…I would like to take you up on a few points. Firstly, a lot has changed since last year. Whilst you are right about the accountability (that is changing – a new UJS Constitution is due to be ratified soon which will increase scrutiny), I feel that this year UJS has been working to tackle hate speech and antisemitism with rigour.
I will give a few examples – in Sussex, where a boycott did pass, UJS went down despite few activists in Sussex and constructed a bridge in the middle of campus, with the slogan ‘Build Bridges not Boycotts’. Whilst previous motions in Sussex have passed with an overwhelming majority, this time they scraped it through with just 90 votes. Moreover, a grassroots movement has developed in Sussex which is challenging the obsession and imbalance with regards to the Middle East.
Secondly, despite there being no activist network in Edinburgh, due to the work of two UJS workers (who travelled up at considerable cost to UJS) Edinburgh students overwhelmingly rejected the boycott motion. Edinburgh, I might add, has seen considerable anti-Israel sentiment, so it is a massive achievement that this occured.
Finally, despite there being very few Jews at Brighton University, due to the contact of UJS with an NUS officer and one single, inexperienced Jewish student, Brighton students rejected a boycott motion in January of this year.
Secondly, with regards to Hate Speakers, UJS has rigorously pursued them wherever they appear. In Birmingham, Cambridge, LSE, Leeds, Manchester, Cardiff etc. we have not had much success, but we are lobbying the Government ministers to make the necessary changes to have greater say in what goes on on campus. At the moment, it is a bit like the Wild West, and Hate Speakers like Azzam Tamimi are taking advantage of this. But these people are being challenged, and with the successful passage of UJS-proposed Hate Speech Guidelines at NUS this mission will succeed I feel.
Finally, I feel it important to talk about Douglas and Jonathan. Jonathan Hoffman – if you are reading this, I hope you know that I think you are a credit to our community. You are one of the most passionate, dedicated people I know, and you are committed to the cause of liberal democracy (underwhich falls opposing Hate Speech and fairness on Israel). Moreover, Douglas, who I have the absolute honour of counting as one of my mentors (much to the chagrin of some), is a noble leader in the fight. Both these individuals work tirelessly and often thanklessly. If they are reading this, I personally want to extend my thanks, and the thanks of many of our leading activists. This has all spiralled unnecessarily, and many people who know very little about the work UJS do are throwing their weight around for very little reason, other than to whinge and shout. My advice would be: until you know about the inner-workings of UJS, and until you know the dedication and time of UJS workers, please lay off a bit. Yes, we do not always get it right, but this no-holds-barred attack on UJS is totally unjustified. We are on the frontline, and we also have considerable experience in NUS, we know the personalities and we know what works and what doesn’t. Our record stands up as one of the most effective communal organisations; just ask students to see how we have performed. We cannot always get it right, but when someone claims that the leadership of UJS is weak, or pathetic, or damns us as ‘liberals’ (which caused me much mirth) they obviosuly know nothing of us.
Many thanks for reading this, and I look forward to the torrent of abuse I will inevitably get. For those of you who criticise in woeful ignorance, I say: shame on you.
@Alex
“Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor” is defined as antisemitic by EUMC.
Advocating “One State” is therefore antisemitic. So is the statement “Zionism = Racism”. And because apartheid is nothing more or less than racism. “Israel is an apartheid state” is an antisemitic statement.
Your “Zionism/Socialism” analogy is a false one. Socialism is merely an economic concept. Zionism is about the aspiration for a Jewish state in the light of history. They could not be more different.
So no, it is quite clear that it is not fine to criticise Zionism, as opposed to criticising Israel (eg saying “Israel should allow more goods to go into Gaza”) which is fine.
Hitchens supports Israel in its present state – which is a state with a Jewish leitmotif – so despite his fairly aggressive atheism no, it would be wrong to obect to him speaking.
Aron Cohen unquestionably should not have a platform, just look at what NK said after the murder of the Holtzbergs (basically that they deserved it for being Israelis).
“I feel we would look incredibly bad”
With whom? There will be those who refuse to understand but why let should that stop you doing what is right? For others, just show them NK’s statement abt the Holtzbergs:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3638621,00.html
Jonathan,
Before I begin, I am fully aware of the great job and would like to echo Mark’s comments about your commitment to the community (although we haven’t met before). If it seems like I am attacking you personally, then I apologise as that is the last thing I would want to do, and sometimes some things I write come out different to how I want them to be interpreted.
I think there is a difference between claiming that the fundamental premise of Israel is racist and that now Israel has been formed, some of the policies can be interpreted as racist, hence the apartheid analogy. Also, whilst on this point, Ben White is very clever in that he says Israeli apartheid is different to South African apartheid, but says they are linked because what he claims happens in the West Bank is a different form of apartheid, but shares the same definition as what happened in South Africa.
Furthermore, just out of interest, would you categorise Desmond Tutu as an anti-semite who should be banned from campuses because of his comparisons of Israel to South Africa?
My point about Aron Cohen was solely regarding this particular point which is why I said “on this basis” not about any of the other potential things we could ban him for. Because he disagrees with zionism, should we label him an anti-semite on this basis?
Christopher Hitchens supports Israel in its present state because he understands it is not going to go away and because they are both fighting a common enemy. If Christopher Hitchens were to have been around 60years ago, would you have classed him as being an anti-semite, because by your analogy, I certainly would have?
Whilst, I can understand and support your intentions behind using the EUMC at every opportunity, even tenuously labelling Ben White an anti-semite, I fear doing this will lead to the term and the definition being practically abused and thus ignored; I am a Jewish Student and I don’t see anything anti-semitic about Ben White, and feel it should be used for the real anti-semites out there where there is no question about it.
With regards to my socialism point, political ideology unfortunately is not my forte (I always thought socialism was a political ideology?!). The point I was making was that criticising zionism as political ideology is just like criticising other political ideologies, especially since we have non-jewish zionists.
“There will be those who refuse to understand but why let should that stop you doing what is right”
I think you have just hit the nail on the head regarding UJS’s actions surrounding the Douglas Murray saga.
Thanks Mark. I do not question that UJS has had some significant wins in a really tough environment.
Mark- whilst I share very much the same view as James on this issue and have had similar experiences of UJS apathy with regards to Israel campaigning, I am somewhat persuaded by what you say. I say this with particular reference to your comments about Jonathan Hoffman and Douglas Murray, both of whom have been amongst the most impressive figures in the fight against anti-semitism and anti-Israel sentment.
I have read the comments on this thread with much interest and have observed that UJSs initial bullish front has become increasingly apologetic as they (possibly) realise that they have misjudged the political mood. Given the tenor of your last response, would you accept, therefore, that in retrospect, UJS did get it wrong and that it was a foolish move to potentially alienate Douglas Murray and then aggressively rebut any criticism of these actions with a haughtiness befitting an organisation that currently does suffer from a lack of accountability?
Would you further accept, that whilst the rest of the conference was seemingly a great success, that the best way with which to deal with this would have been to acted in solidarity with Douglas and cancelled this forum, thus both demonstrating that UJS were unwilling to compromise their values and exposing FOSIS for what they really are?
Hey Adam,
I must say, I find this all quite tragically amusing. We get battered from students like you and James, who claim UJS does not do enough on Israel. We also get battered by Jewish students who try to dislocate Israel entirely from UJS’ remit. What I would ask for is a bit of understanding…we are constantly trying to keep together all varying strands of thoughts…we attempt to be as representative as possible. Furthermore it is worth remembering that we are employed as employees – I am technically not accountable to anyone other than the elected Chairman/woman of UJS. I am more like a civil servant/technocrat/bureaucrat.
Secondly, I stand by our decision. I simply do not understand how everyone has been taken in by this idea that UJS has succumbed to pressure. This was a simple political decision taken by us, and I think that it was the right one. Every organisation by its very nature (read Weber) will try to defend itself – when you have well-trained, well-practised activists under attack, they will do what they have been trained to do – that is, go back just as strong. From my opinion, I woke up on Friday morning to a simultaneous, three-pronged attack in Standpoint, the JC and the Daily Telegraph, attacks which bore NO RELEVANCE to what was happening on the ground. Much of this which has been lauded is total nonsense, and everyone with half an opinion has popped up and taken cheap shots.
I voiced my thanks and admiration to Jonathan and Douglas because I have had the good fortune of working with them, and I know what they are about. As do many of our activists. But this was pure politics, and I am sure that our enemies are having a good laugh at how monumentally out-of-proportion this has become. It is time for us to unite together and focus our energies on those who work tirelessly against us and the liberal democratic values so beautifully represented by Israel.
Enough of this nonsense. Jonathan knows where my heart is. Douglas knows my ideology. They also know what UJS is about, and they know we toe a difficult line.
Mark, thanks for your considered response. Whilst I agree, it is ungainly for us to start debating this issue in public I will just say this:
The fact that you are a “bureaucrat” or a “technocrat” as you rather grandiosely put it, is precisely the point. What on earth gives you the mandate to take serious political decisions? To extend the analogy, it seems obvious that in this situation UJS suffers from a “democratic deficit”. Your actions are akin to the civil service legislating in Parliament without the consent of MPs or the European Commission simply implementing a Regulation without being held accountable by the European Parliament.
It is high time that our campaigns team were properly elected (and scrutinised) on a political platform; just as the President has been. If the wider Jewish student community want to elect a campaigns team with a conciliatory approach then whilst I will not be happy, then I will have to accept it. However, as it stands, and to my considerable frustration, I have had absolutely no say on UJSs stance or direction and this will seemingly continue to be the case.
Yes Tutu should be no-platformed, unless he is speaking on a subject entirely unrelated to Israel
http://www.oyvagoy.com/2009/05/23/desmond-tutus-orgy-of-antisemitism/
Kasrils too.
White:
http://blog.z-word.com/2009/07/lies-damn-lies-and-the-apartheid-analogy/
“I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are”
… tried to contextualise comments of Ahmadinejad denoting a disbelief in the Holocaust
…. includes references to a book by a convicted Holocaust Denier
http://seismicshock.wordpress.com/2009/07/17/ben-white-recommends-roger-garaudy-essay-in-%E2%80%98israeli-apartheid-guide%E2%80%99/
So ….. yes he should be no-platformed.
We are looking to create an informed policy forum for campaigns activists in response to your point about democracy. I do not think having an elected campaigns team is practical – those in the campaigns team are employed to put into effect the vision of the Chairman, which works. If UJS members wish to elect a Chairman with a different focus, they have their opportunity to every year. Moreover, UJS Campaigns has become far more inclusive and open, so if you want to get involved and make a change there is practically very little stopping you. Usually, the people who are our loudest critics are those that do the least. Not necessarily you (I do not know if I actually know you) but all I am saying is it is pretty easy to criticize from the outside.
Our high retention, positive results and massively increased participation is testament to the rigour with which UJS selects its employees. Finally, take another cheap jab at me for being ‘grandiose’, but I was drawing an analogy; I am confident enough in my qualifications, experience and abilities and I have the confidence of the community. Our Campaigns Team has taken a lot of flak, but I for one am going to stand up and say that our Campaigns Director has take the right decisions at the key times and for that ‘the girl from UJS’ deserves far more credit than she receives.
Why is it not practical? Ultimately, the Chairman has to delegate responsibility to the Campaign’s coordinator and it is a crucial job, especially at this hostile and difficult time. I don’t see why it wouldn’t be equally easy to have yearly elections for a campaigns team as well and I certainly don’t think Adam Pike should bear exclusive responsibility for important policy decisions because they are “his vision”. Moreover, UJS is often accused of “cronyism”; more elections would potentially avert this criticism…
As for your qualifications- I have no doubt you work hard very hard for UJS, you are clearly an articulate defender of (what you perceive to be) Jewish students’ and Israel’s interests and that you were a distinguished member of Cambridge J-Soc’s exec. However, I can assure you, this is not criticism from an apathetic member of the Jewish community and if I feel you have “ballsed” something up, I am entitled to have my opinion heard without the inevitable “why don’t you do more yourself” line being thrown-up. Whilst you make (unsupported) claims of UJS being made far more “inclusive and open”, I have yet to see the evidence, both from what you have said (after all you are bunch of unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic students) or from actual practice.
As for the last point- I couldn’t agree more. It’s not just the apathy that’s problematic but also the reactivism. Whilst UJS clearly has been helpful in batting away potential boycott/divestment situations, we now need to take proactive stances to ensure people regard Israel in a more positive light.
Adam,
As someone who clearly cares so much about the integrity of UJS, i find it odd that you choose to raise your concerns and views on UJS in such a public forum.
Would you not be better of raising them directly with UJS via the website where every member of the exec has their contact details?
Have you eve vocally raised any objections to the way UJS is run in the past?
Furthermore, I would like to add that this year has seen a remarkable increase in proactive campaigns regarding Israel. In Nottingham, Manchester, Birmingham and LSE, each Jewish society held an Israel awareness week which included loads of Israeli Food, film, dancing and speakers. In LSE, there was a very successful street market set up on one day which had a wine tasting stall, a falafel stall, a nargillah stall, all to the backdrop of Israeli music. In Birmingham, there was a stand-up comedian who played to over 200 people and a large amount of money was raised for the Save a Child’s Heart Foundation, an incredible organisation. In Nottingham, the Jewish society managed to get the SU bar to sell Maccabee Beer. In Manchester, despite the events surrounding the proposed talk by the deputy ambassador, a very successful week was held with proactive Israel related activities happening on every day of the week. This is not an exhaustive list and there are plenty more events.
I don’t know which university you are at, but this clearly shows that there has been pro-active activities this year, and considering some of the stuff which has happened such as the street market, you dont get any more pro-active than that.
If you do feel that you would like to do something similar then I dont see any issue why you can’t. I might also stress, that most of these events were run by the Jewish society’s themselves and if you are from a uni where there is not a large core, then UJS has shown, for example when it was the UJS exec and practically one member of the j-soc in sussex when they made a bridge in opposition to the boycott motion, that they are more than willing to help you out if you need the manpower.
In my experience, they have always been there whenever we have needed them and one must question, how many times have you really needed them and told them that you need them yet there has been no one on the other side?
Having gone into this a little, I understand where the UJS is coming from on this particular issue, and although I defended UJS on Douglas’s Telegraph blog, I think we do well to remember who our friends are and not as he says, to alienate them.
The bigger issue is the apathy of the UK Jewish community to stand up and be counted. Jonathan Hoffman is to be applauded for his steadfast support for Israel and his amazing dedication at being quite literally at the front line and often, all by himself.
With the plethora of Jewish organisations that exist, one would have thought that the community could field more people to combat and oppose the appalling anti Semitic and anti Israel activity that occurs virtually every week, up and down the UK.
I and other friends do our best to support Jonathan whenever we can, but there are reputedly 280,000 British Jews – are we the only people who are able, willing and interested enough to attend these meetings to ensure an alternative voice or opinion is heard?
The complacency of the major Jewish organisations is terrifying. Its a cliche but none the less true that for evil to succeed, all it takes is for good men to do nothing, and that’s just what is happening right now.
I agree that the apathy of the community is a problem. When it all kicked off in Gaza last year, we had thousands of people at the demonstrations in London and Manchester which clearly shows that people do care.
I think it is more about engaging them in other ways, perhaps making events more public. I know ZF, UJS and other organisations are at the forefront of working on engagement and personally encourage them to keep up their good work and hopefully in due course we shall see some results!
That first line looks like a complete contradiction. What I meant to say was that yes apathy towards certain issues is a problem but the fundamental fact is that people do care. It is about keeping them engaged when there are no wars going on and no protests to attend which is the issue.
Whilst I said I had retired from this discussion – I’m inclined to weigh in briefly.
I think it’s very important to note that whilst there may be a difference in opinion on certain political issues, accusations of complacency are misplaced. The UJS campaigns team (and I say this as a regular student, not employee) work incredibly hard, and whilst there may be disagreements in the correct strategy to be employed about hate speech this should not be mis-sold as an example of laziness or complacency.
Secondly I want to publicly echo Marks comments (though I hope I’ve made this clear in all my posts) that I greatly admire the work of Jonathan Hoffman, someone that for years has often been the only person willing to defend Israel on the front line in situations few would put themselves in. This thread has, at least in my eyes, been a friendly disagreement on a political issue, and nothing more.
Thirdly I’d like to say that we should not let this be blown out of proportion. Whilst we have disagreements (it would be unhealthy not to from time to time), the enemy we all face is far greater, and we must not lose sight of the bigger picture. Whatever our individual positions are, hate speech will continue to threaten our entire community (whether student or not) and it’s through unity we’ll succeed.
Believe me Alex, I have suggested having an I-Fest, but I have been rebuffed by certain members of my university’s exec. However, this is besides the point. Maybe we can talk about these things privately, you’re right, I do agree a unified front is important.
That said, I don’t see the problem with UJS facing a little bit of public scrutiny if there are disagreements. Sometimes, that is a more effective means of gauging what the Jewish student community actually think about an issue. I would stress at this point, that I don’t doubt that UJS work extremely hard, are well-intentioned and that they are often effective. However, there does appear to be real anger about this decision and I think this is worth confronting rather than sweeping under the carpet.
Adam, of course I don’t believe it is wrong to scrutinise UJS on some issues publicly, just as it is not wrong to scrutinise other national organisations who are to be held to account. However, due to its nature, I don’t think UJS should be treated like other national organisations and talking about how we should have elected campaigns officers and how UJS is often accused of “cronyism” is not wise, especially at such a crucial time where UJS is gradually beginning to get through to FOSIS.
Furthermore, if you have been rebuffed by members of University exec, that is not to say that you can’t go to UJS. Theres nothing which says you must be a committee member for UJS to help you.
With regards to this particular issue, i think Jonathan Hoffman hit he nail on the head “There will be those who refuse to understand but why let should that stop you doing what is right”
Alex- from the perspective of maintaining personal relationships with people you deal with on a day-to-day basis, sometimes it’s not the right thing to go directly to UJS. I also think that if you are going to try something as big as an I-Fest you need a broad consensus and support from the exec. I’ll leave it at that.
I don’t think what I said was particularly sensitive or specific. I am fairly sure there have been (and will be) far worse things said in the media about this whole sorry episode in days and weeks to come already. In fact, if anything, I attempted to be constructively rather than mindlessly critical. I do accept the worth of UJS as an organisation. Nonetheless, I don’t think by guilting me into censoring myself (at least publicly) you are doing yourself any favours.
As for the FOSIS comment, if you are right and this sparks a nation wide movement against “hate-speakers”, I will put my hand up and be the first to acknowledge that I was completely wrong and that you took the right approach. I will also be delighted that you truly did act in our best interests. However, as yet, I do reserve the right to make judgment.
Oli, I’m sorry to say but I think you are mistaken.
However great a success the event transpired to be, two important principal were at stake- principals more important still than highlighting the bigotry of FOSIS.
Firstly, moderate organisations such as the UJS and NUS must never acquiesce to the unreasonable and bigoted demands of extremist organisations such as FOSIS. Supposing FOSIS had demanded a heterosexual opponent, or refused to debate with a woman, or a Jew, or whoever. The UJS should not be dictated to and should have the strength in its own convictions to say a debate at any price is not tolerable. The UJS should certainly not be dictated to by these anti-semites, homophobes and zealots, who are the enemey of everything the UJS and reasonable people everywhere stand for.
Secondly, I am suprised at your dismay that Douglas Murray has ‘turned against the UJS.’ Firstly, this is plainly untrue-he has not turned against the UJS. Secondly, even if he were very angry than so he should be. If I had dedicated my lifes work to speaking for and defending a community I myself was not a part of, I would expect a modicum of courtesy and some reciprocal defending myself. In appeasing one of our primary enemies, we have alienated one of closest and most articulate friends. I cannot believe that this a price worth paying. So what if FOSIS were shown up in some two-bit, student fringe event. Do you really think that it is going to make any material difference to the opions of FOSIS members or to the daily lives and struggles of Jewish students? If you do, you are either supremely optimistic or profoundly deluded.
I appreciate the UJS had good intentions. And I also accept bi-lateral debates are important. Its just somethings are more important.
Mark,
You claim that “This was a simple political decision taken by us” without pressure. Had FOSIS not threatened to pull out of the debate would you still have cancelled Douglas Murray?
Nice work Oliver and as well an interesting discussion.
Diva Douglas is all I say!
R