RSS
An ‘Abject, Squalid, Shameless’ Debate at the Oxford Union
Oxford University students in formal academic dress, c. 2006. Photo: Flickr/James
JNS.org – In an era dominated by social media and defined by short attention spans, it’s striking that longer, more involved debates hosted by elite institutions still matter.
The Oxford Union—a debating society created at Oxford University in the 1820s, immodestly billing itself as “the most prestigious debating society in the world”—is one of those institutions. During its forthcoming Michaelmas term, which covers the winter months, the Union is planning a debate on the motion: “This house recognizes that Israel is an apartheid state responsible for genocide.”
One of the proposed speakers at the debate is my good friend Prof. Gerald Steinberg, who teaches in the politics department at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. In 2002, Steinberg founded the Israeli watchdog NGO Monitor, which has since played an invaluable role in analyzing and exposing the role of non-governmental organizations in the war against Israel on the propaganda and legal fronts. The Oxford Union rightly assessed that Steinberg would be an ideal speaker to defend Israel’s reputation and duly sent him an invite.
An invitation to speak at the Oxford Union is commonly regarded in academic and media circles as a great honor and an affirmation of one’s expertise in a particular subject area.
Indeed, the invitation to Steinberg was dripping with the kind of self-importance that makes Oxford and Cambridge Universities the continual butt of dismissive jokes among the acerbically humorous, class-obsessed British. It ran through a list of speakers to have graced its hall over the past two centuries, including three U.S. presidents, the late Queen Elizabeth II, the Dalai Lama and the radical African-American advocate Malcolm X.
For good measure, the invitation highlighted two debates from the past century to entice Steinberg. One was from 1933, the year Hitler came to power and the Union shamefully voted in favor of the motion: “This House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.” The other was from 1962—five years before Israel unified Jerusalem and conquered Judea, Samaria, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights during the Six-Day War—when the Union debated the contention that the “creation of the State of Israel is one of the mistakes of the century.”
Despite his impressive credentials, Steinberg is a modest man who can be relied upon to do the right thing. He sent the Union a response that ripped the premises of their proposed debate to shreds. Addressing the reference in the invitation letter to the infamous 1933 debate as an example of the Union’s “tradition of confronting the boldest questions of our time,” he observed: “That tradition is also described as exploiting the Oxford Union as a platform for crude political propaganda. The histories of this event highlight the fact that the debate took place shortly after Hitler became the German leader and the Nazis launched the actions and laws targeting the Jewish population. Winston Churchill described the Union’s behavior in 1933 as an ‘abject, squalid, shameless avowal. … It is a very disquieting and disgusting symptom.’”
Churchill’s condemnation applies no less to the topic on which Steinberg was invited to debate.
“The gratuitous labels of ‘apartheid’ and ‘genocide’ add to this edifice, and some might conclude that the leaders and members of the Oxford Union seek to repeat and reinforce the travesties of 1933 and 1962,” he wrote.
Steinberg then dealt with the frankly libelous claims of “apartheid” and “genocide” against Israel, highlighting the historical context and moral significance of both these terms.
Regarding “apartheid,” Steinberg correctly reminded the debate organizers that this term originally appeared in relation to Israel as a result of intensive Soviet propaganda efforts during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to strip the Jewish state of its legitimacy, with Moscow lobbing words like “Nazi” and “racist” into the brew as well.
On the invocation of genocide, Steinberg noted that this term—applicable to the Turkish slaughter of the Armenians during World War I, the Holocaust of six million Jews during World War II and more recent events of mass killing and systemic abuse in Cambodia, Rwanda and Myanmar/Burma—was now being distorted to “delegitimize responses to military aggression, asymmetric warfare and atrocities directed at civilian populations, such as committed by Hamas and its allies.”
Part of the problem here is that while the team at the Oxford Union is gushingly proud of the debate topics covered during that institution’s long existence, they appear to be less familiar with the underlying substance.
Had they examined the examples of genocide cited above, they might have noticed a common pattern: In every case, regimes targeted minorities simply based on their identity. In Pol Pot’s Cambodia, even wearing glasses marked one out as a candidate for death, because a pair of specs was seen as evidence of a bourgeois education. These regimes then used killing methods like mass executions and concentration camps to eliminate those they targeted.
Both before and during the killings, the victim groups were dehumanized in regime propaganda. The Nazis depicted Jews as “rats” and the Hutu killing mobs in Rwanda referred to Tutsis as “cockroaches.” Victim groups were at best poorly armed, at worst utterly defenseless, in the face of their killers.
Similarly, those who invoke the word “apartheid” in the context of Israel have little idea of what that system involved or the discredited racist ideology it was based upon. For most of the 20th century in South Africa, the Black population that comprises 90% of the country was subjected to humiliating restrictions in every aspect of their lives, along with the denial of suffrage.
While South African apartheid was unique, there are some ironic parallels visible in the Middle East—but not in Israel. In Syria and Bahrain, to take just two examples, unelected, heavily armed minorities engage in brutal rule over the majorities, as was the case in South Africa. In Qatar, less than 10% of the population are full citizens. Everyone else, including the vast reservoir of migrant labor toiling in conditions of slavery, is seen as a lesser being, deemed unfit to even enter the gleaming shopping malls and hotels built with their own sweat. In Iran, women and religious minorities suffer from discrimination rooted in the Islamic Republic’s interpretation of the Quran and other religious texts.
All of this is ignored because it contradicts the dogma that Israel lies at the root of all the conflicts in the Middle East and, in increasing numbers of fevered minds, the world. The Oxford Union is no less guilty of sacralizing this dogma than is some idiot on Instagram posting an Israeli flag juxtaposed with a Nazi swastika.
As Steinberg suggested at the end of his reply, if the Oxford Union is really serious about upholding its tradition of bold debates that pull no punches, it should consider the motion: “This house recognizes that its own history of Jew-hatred in different forms is fundamentally immoral and offers its apologies.”
The post An ‘Abject, Squalid, Shameless’ Debate at the Oxford Union first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS
Demonstrators hold signs and pictures of hostages, as relatives and supporters of Israeli hostages kidnapped during the Oct. 7, 2023 attack by Hamas protest demanding the release of all hostages in Tel Aviv, Israel, Feb. 13, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Itai Ron
i24 News – A source familiar with the ongoing negotiations for a hostage deal confirmed to i24NEWS on Friday that some progress has been made in talks, currently taking place with Egypt, including the exchange of draft proposals. However, it remains unclear whether Hamas will ultimately accept the emerging framework. According to the source, discussions are presently focused on reaching a cohesive outline with Cairo.
A delegation of senior Hamas officials is expected to arrive in Cairo tomorrow. While there is still no finalized draft, even Arab sources acknowledge revisions to Egypt’s original proposal, reportedly including a degree of flexibility in the number of hostages Hamas is willing to release.
The source noted that Hamas’ latest proposal to release five living hostages is unacceptable to Israel, which continues to adhere to the “Witkoff framework.” At the core of this framework is the release of a significant number of hostages, alongside a prolonged ceasefire period—Israel insists on 40 days, while Hamas is demanding more. The plan avoids intermittent pauses or distractions, aiming instead for uninterrupted discussions on post-war arrangements.
As previously reported, Israel is also demanding comprehensive medical and nutritional reports on all living hostages as an early condition of the deal.
“For now,” the source told i24NEWS, “Hamas is still putting up obstacles. We are not at the point of a done deal.” Israeli officials emphasize that sustained military and logistical pressure on Hamas is yielding results, pointing to Hamas’ shift from offering one hostage to five in its most recent agreement.
Negotiators also assert that Israel’s demands are fully backed by the United States. Ultimately, Israeli officials are adamant: no negotiations on the “day after” will take place until the hostage issue is resolved—a message directed not only at Hamas, but also at mediators.
The post Some Progress in Hostage Talks But Major Issues Remain, Source tells i24NEWS first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Trump’s Envoy Witkoff Meets with Putin in Russia
Russian President Vladimir Putin delivers a speech during a session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. Photo: Reuters/Maxim Shemetov
i24 News – Russian President Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff met for talks in St. Petersburg on Friday.
Witkoff flew to Russia on Friday morning for talks with President Vladimir Putin about the search for a peace deal on Ukraine, the Kremlin said, saying the two men might also discuss a Trump-Putin meeting.
Witkoff has emerged as a key figure in the on-off rapprochement between Moscow and Washington amid talk on the Russian side of potential joint investments in the Arctic and in Russian rare earth minerals.
Putin was also in St Petersburg on Friday to hold what the Kremlin called an “extraordinarily important” meeting about the development of the Russian Navy, which is in the throes of a major modernization and expansion drive.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov played down the planned Witkoff-Putin meeting, telling Russian state media the US envoy’s visit would not be “momentous” and that no breakthroughs were expected.
The meeting will be their third this year and comes at a time when US tensions with Iran and China – two countries with which Russia has close ties – are severely strained over Tehran’s nuclear program and a burgeoning trade war with Beijing.
Witkoff is due in Oman on Saturday for talks with Iran over its nuclear program after Trump threatened Tehran with military action if it does not agree to a deal. Moscow has repeatedly offered its help in trying to clinch a diplomatic settlement.
Putin and Trump have spoken by phone but have yet to meet face-to-face since the US leader returned to the White House in January for a second four-year term.
Trump, who has shown signs of losing patience, has spoken of imposing secondary sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil if he feels Moscow is dragging its feet on a Ukrainian deal.
The post Trump’s Envoy Witkoff Meets with Putin in Russia first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Iran, US End High-Level Talks in Oman, Agree to Resume ‘Next Week’, Tehran Says
Atomic symbol and USA and Iranian flags are seen in this illustration taken, September 8, 2022. Photo: REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
Iran and the US held talks in Oman on Saturday and agreed to reconvene next week, the Iranian side said, a dialogue meant to address Tehran’s escalating nuclear program with President Donald Trump threatening military action if there is no deal.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi posted on his Telegram channel that his delegation had a brief encounter with its US counterpart, headed by Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, after they exited the indirect talks mediated by Oman.
“After the end of more than 2-1/2 hours of indirect talks, the heads of the Iranian and American delegations spoke for a few minutes in the presence of the Omani foreign minister as they left the talks,” Araqchi said.
He said the talks – a first between Iran and a Trump administration, including his first term in 2017-21 – took place in a “productive and positive atmosphere.”
“Both sides have agreed to continue the talks next week,” Araqchi wrote, without elaborating about the venue and date.
There was no immediate US comment on the talks.
Underlining the profound rift between the US and Iran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmail Baghaei earlier said on X that each delegation had its separate room and would exchange messages via Oman’s foreign minister.
“The current focus of the talks will be de-escalating regional tensions, prisoner exchanges and limited agreements to ease sanctions (against Iran) in exchange for controlling Iran’s nuclear program,” an Omani source told Reuters. Baghaei denied this account but did not specify what was false.
Oman has long been an intermediary between Western powers and Iran, having brokered the release of several foreign citizens and dual nationals held by the Islamic Republic.
Tehran approached the talks warily, skeptical they could yield a deal and suspicious of Trump, who has repeatedly threatened to bomb Iran if it does not halt its accelerating uranium enrichment program – regarded by the West as a possible pathway to nuclear weapons.
While each side has talked up the chances of some progress, they remain far apart on a dispute that has rumbled on for more than two decades. Iran has long denied seeking nuclear weapons capability, but Western countries and Israel believe it is covertly trying to develop the means to build an atomic bomb.
Saturday’s exchanges appeared indirect, as Iran had wanted, rather than face-to-face, as Trump had demanded.
“This is a beginning. So it is normal at this stage for the two sides to present to each other their fundamental positions through the Omani intermediary,” Baghaei said.
Signs of progress could help cool tensions in a region aflame since 2023 with wars in Gaza and Lebanon, missile fire between Iran and Israel, Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping and the overthrow of the government in Syria.
HIGH STAKES
However, failure would aggravate fears of a wider conflagration across a region that exports much of the world’s oil. Tehran has cautioned neighboring countries that have US bases that they would face “severe consequences” if they were involved in any US military attack on Iran.
“There is a chance for initial understanding on further negotiations if the other party (U.S.) enters the talks with an equal stance,” Araqchi told Iranian TV.
Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on key state matters, has given Araqchi “full authority” for the talks, an Iranian official told Reuters.
Iran has ruled out negotiating its defense capabilities such as its ballistic missile program.
Western nations say Iran’s enrichment of uranium, a nuclear fuel source, has gone far beyond the requirements of a civilian energy program and has produced stocks at a level of fissile purity close to those required in warheads.
Trump, who has restored a “maximum pressure” campaign on Tehran since February, ditched a 2015 nuclear pact between Iran and six world powers in 2018 during his first term and reimposed crippling sanctions on the Islamic Republic.
Since then, Iran’s nuclear program has leaped forward, including by enriching uranium to 60% fissile purity, a technical step from the levels needed for a bomb.
Israel, Washington’s closest Middle East ally, regards Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat and has long threatened to attack Iran if diplomacy fails to curb its nuclear ambitions.
Tehran’s influence throughout the Middle East has been severely weakened over the past 18 months, with its regional allies – known as the “Axis of Resistance” – either dismantled or badly damaged since the start of the Hamas-Israel war in Gaza and the fall of Bashar al-Assad in Syria in December.
The post Iran, US End High-Level Talks in Oman, Agree to Resume ‘Next Week’, Tehran Says first appeared on Algemeiner.com.