On January 11, 2008 Alan Dershowitz wrote a piece under the title: The Oxford Union's Destructive "Debate" in which he reminds the readers that in October of 2007 he wrote an obituary for the Oxford Union because "its debates have become more one-sided, more absurd, and more trivial than most bar room brawls."
He then explains what, in his view, was wrong with that debate: "The problem was with the debaters selected by the Oxford Union to defend the two-state solution, which is synonymous with Israel’s right to exist."
He goes on to explain what he regards as being wrong with another debate proposed to take place later this month: "Now the Oxford Union has gone even further. It has scheduled a debate on January 24 on whether Israel has the right to exist. Both speakers are virulent Israel-haters…"
And he ends the January 11 piece like this: "But at the Oxford Union, the only debate permitted is over the means used to end Israel's existence…This is not a public debate. It is public execution."
Whether we accept or reject his bar room brawl or his public execution analogies, Alan Dershowitz is doing the debate a favor because he is unknowingly advancing it in the right direction albeit while he kicks and screams.
In reality, for more than 40 years now there has been no honest debate in the Anglo World about the Middle East because the Arabs who could articulate their side of the story were blacklisted and banned from having access to the public stage, yours truly included.
To invite an Arab who can tell his own story was an act of demonstrable anti-Semitism punishable by including the name of the offending party into the same blacklist. The result was that Jews were invited to tell their side of the story and tell what they fantasized to be the Arab side while the real Arab side was ridiculed and then labeled the "so-called Arab side" and was set aside for being too irrelevant to what the public ought to know.
What Dershowitz is now doing is describe in a roundabout way the enormity of the damage that his Jewish lobby has inflicted over the years on the Anglo public that wanted to hear the two sides of the story and on the Arab commentators who wanted to tell their side of the story. Not knowing what he is doing, he is now presenting the Arab side but with two modifications. In the first place he speaks of Israel's rights where he should be speaking of Palestine's rights. In the second place he fantastically missed out on the scale of the thing.
To visualize this last point, imagine a scale designed to weigh the two sides of the situation. On one side you have a student debating society that schedules a debate and is forced to cancel because of pressure from the Jewish lobby headed by none other than Dershowitz himself. The debating society then makes another attempt and Dershowitz goes after it again calling its activities a public execution of Israel.
On the other side of the scale you have thousands upon thousands of radio, television and print media propagating the Judeo-Israeli story through millions upon millions of reports and opinion pieces 24/7 for nearly 15000 days; not to forget the entertainment vehicles, the reference publications, the symposiums, the debating societies and what have you - all of which articulated the Judeo-Israeli side at the exclusion of the Christian Arabs, the Palestinians and the Muslims.
Now then, if one failed attempt and one attempt that has not yet materialized are perceived to be a public execution of Israel by Dershowitz, what does he think of what the Palestinians were made to endure as a result of his lobby's activities during all these years?
Dershowitz does not have to answer this question because of two reasons. First, if he tries consciously to answer it, he will lie again and the World has had a bellyful of that. Second, he has already answered the question in the most honest manner he possibly can, not knowing what he is doing.
The man has, in effect, said that to debate a two sided story you must have two opposite sides to debate it. Whether or not he is correct in accusing the Oxford Union of making poor choices in their selection of the debaters is something for others to decide as I am not familiar with the stand taken by everyone involved.
What I know is what I and others like me were put through over the past 40 years until the internet came along and gave me the opportunity to express myself in my own words without having to endure the spectacle of a Jew like Dershowitz looking into the camera and say: "I tell you what the Arabs think with regard to this question…"
At times the Universe unfolds in a way that imposes strange coincidences on the march of history making us wonder if these are truly coincidences or the inevitable consequence of what has been cooking for decades. To wit, several incidences are currently developing in Canada in the realm of freedom of speech. Two Jews have been asked to appear before Human Rights Commissions with regard to something they wrote or published. And a Native Chief who was convicted of promoting hatred against Jews but then saw the conviction reversed saw the reversal of his conviction upheld a second time this past week.
With regard to the last case, the mainstream media did not report the upholding of the reversal and then comment that the Crown had the option to appeal the decision one more time to a higher court. No, that's not how the news was presented. Instead, minutes after the judgment was handed down, the media spoke as if in the name of the Crown and asserted that the case was going to be appealed. Only after they had done this did the media mention that the reversal was upheld a second time.
But in reality the Crown had not said anything yet about whether or not it will appeal the second reversal. The assertion that it did was the media's way to clamor that the Crown take the case to the Supreme Court. Yes folks, in this day and age, to criminally fake the news is the media's way to loudly express the wish that something happen the way they fantasize it to be. No, this is not in an Orwellian horror novel, folks; it is an existing Jewish dictatorship called North America in which we all live and suffer.
As for the two Jews whose cases are before the Human Rights Commissions, some of the media which pretend to be unbiased are calling this a persecution. In one case, the totally abominable host of the show went on television night after night to do the proverbial beating of the breast, tearing of the hair, banging of the head against the wall and pulling of the entrails out of his belly while screaming: bloody murder, look what they are doing to those poor Jews!
Folks out there, look at the concept of justice as it is understood and practiced by these people. To call on the Crown to go further with the case of the Native Chief whose conviction was thrown out of court twice already in a case that has gone on for nearly a decade is not persecution in their eyes. But to call on a Jew once to explain why he wrote or published something the way he did is persecution worth turning the World upside down over.
I can say from these examples and from my own experience that there is nothing more disgusting in all of creation than this brand of dictatorship which is made worse by the fact that it is disguised as a democracy. It is pure filth through and through and it has no rival on Earth as to the stink it gives off and the virulent effect it has on its victims.
It is worth remembering that this is justice as described in the Talmud; it is what the Zionist lobby wants to impose on mankind. Compare it with the time when there was a suggestion to give Muslims the choice of being adjudicated in family matters under the civil law of the land or the religious law known as Shariah. Even though Jews could make this same choice with regard to their family laws, the lobby and some Jewish organizations opposed the principle of equal treatment for the Muslims.
All the while, that same lobby and those same organizations have crept the Talmudic law into our daily lives to the point where the Talmud has now become the de facto law of the land and where no one is protected from its devastating effects because it is not even acknowledged that we are being ruled by this stone age concept of justice.
In any case, whatever Dershowitz thinks he is doing in pushing forward his thoughtless views, he is helping to advance the debate with a force I could never have mustered without his input. Having amassed the amount of power that he did as he and the lobby have operated without opposition over the decades, they are now being crushed by the mass of that power weighing on their shoulders. And the debris that is flying off in every direction has become the fodder that is feeding my furnace.
The man and the lobby have reached the point where they find themselves compelled to deny they have the power to harm someone when in the past they used to brag about the power they had to raise someone meek to the level of a star or sink the mighty with a single op-ed article carried by one or two publications. Things are changing indeed.
Dershowitz ends his January 11 piece by saying that what the Oxford Union is trying to do is conduct a public execution of Israel. This says nothing about the Oxford Union but it says that Dershowitz is admitting what he and the lobby were trying to do over the past 40 years was to publicly execute Palestine, the Arabs and individuals like me who wanted to speak for themselves. But we all survived the onslaught of the Zionist lobby and this feat can only be attributed to the fact that our case was strong enough to deserve staying alive.
The gist of the Dershowitz argument is that he wants equity, fairness and justice for Israel. So do we. Consequently, he and his lobby must now let things unfold without interference so that we get to see how long Israel, himself and the lobby can hang on under circumstances that are but a small sample of what we were made to endure.