Moral Outrage? It’s there, and it’s justified.

Reading an opinion piece in Wednesday’s WSJ: Our Selective Moral Outrage - Why does Israel face more opprobrium than Russia?‘. I am continually disappointed with Israel’s wartime violence and lack of cultural nous, (displayed in the  UN report reporting on Israeli solders making Palestinian children before them as human shields Haaretz: IDF troops used 11-year-old boy as human shield in Gaza), that I tend to react negatively when those in the US based media try to explain away or shame away critics. I’d be very interested to hear from those who think I’m wrong.

Why greater censure; because Israel has higher relative wealth than Russia and in other contexts acts in an intelligent and rational way. How can we explain away Israel’s bad behaviour as though it doesn’t have other options? Melanie Phillips in The Spectator writes today of the west’s ‘pathological obsession’ with Israel, ‘Selective Moral Outrage‘. The thing is, when we discussing a state that is financially propped up by the US, one should hold them to a higher standard. It’s delusional and insulting to claim that all opposition to the actions Israel takes militarily is anti-semitic, as Bret Stephens implies: ‘As for the Chechens, too bad for their cause that no Jew will ever likely become president of Russia’.  Russia is no Israel and visa versa. This but what about argument just doesn’t hold water. As Johann Hari recently wrote in his article in The Independent – ‘How to spot a lame, lame argument‘: There is one particular type of bad argument that has always existed, but it has now spread like tar over the world-wide web, and is seeping into the pubs, coffee shops and opinion columns everywhere. It is known as ‘what-aboutery’ – and there was a particularly ripe example of it in response to one of my articles last week.

As a rhetorical trick, it is simple. Anyone can do it, and we are all tempted sometimes. When you have lost an argument – when you can’t justify your case, and it is crumbling in your hands – you snap back: “But what about x?” You then raise a totally different subject, and try to get everybody to focus on it – hoping it will distract attention from your own deflated case.

Can we back away from the distraction of comparing Israel/Palestine to everywhere else in the world and concentrate on fixing what is clearly going wrong with that conflict itself. Middle-Eastern peace won’t come because one day everyone realises what Russia does in Chechnya is worse, but rather when all sides are honest about they can, could and should do to end conflict and bring about a harmonious life for all. I still think this is possible, though the mindset and honesty from all parties required is some ways off.

Plus, basing an article on numbers of hits from a Google search is elementary-school level journalism.

Bret Stephens in The Wall Street Journal – Our Selective Moral Outrage – Why does Israel face more opprobrium than Russia?

Popularity: 2% [?]

NUS Conference Speeches

A certain popular road-warrior, Wes Streeting, on the way to being elected NUS National President. I wish I’d had a chance to meet him. Perhaps in the future. This speech doesn’t seem as impressive as it was at the time. In the hall as he was speaking there was a buzz of energy and of possibility. It’s very easy to sound angry on the podium, but to be angry with a passion and with direction is what’s powerful. Wes, for one, certainly has that power. I couldn’t be more pleased that he was elected.


Absolute comedy pisstake joy at the NUS conference. Ross Stanley is someone to watch out for, he made a number of coherent contributions during the course of the three days and came across well in all of them. Then he came out with this at the end of day two, showing one CAN do politics with a sense of humour.

Popularity: 3% [?]

NUS LGBT Conference Manifesto

I am a fourth year Politics student, and I’ve just returned from the NUS Annual Conference. I’ve been involved behind the scenes in LUU LGBT events since my first year, helping plan events and considering strategy. This past term I ran for election to the Union Exec because I want to promote OUR issues and highlight that we are still not truly liberated.

We have too many friends who are silent about the discrimination we face daily, and we have too many friends for whom ‘gay’ is a term for ‘weird’. We must campaign for our rights and ensure that our visibility on campuses across the country is a force for improvement. We must continually compel Student Union Officers to represent STUDENT ISSUES BEFORE ALL ELSE, not political concerns thousands of miles away.

It is easy to be distracted by irrelevant agendas. We weaken our cause by directionless rants about issues not within our mandate. The NUS system takes some work to understand but can be made to work in our favour. I will aid our delegates in casting INFORMED votes and help them understand how to make the system support our positions.

* I strongly oppose and am continually offended by the ban on gay male blood donors.
* I prefer ‘marriage’ to ‘civil partnership’. How can it be acceptable that LGBT citizens are denied the same institutional unions as everybody else?
* FIGHT to encourage the acknowledgement of LGBT issues by the student body. We can and must be more ambitious than we are. When LGBT allies and non-activist friends show their support we CAN BE A FORCE OF STRENGTH AND PROGRESS.

VOTE Patrick for LGBT Conference!

Popularity: 1% [?]

Being Atheist by Christopher Hitchens

Jonathan Miller, who’s now kind of the new chairman of the International Secular Society or the British Humanist Association, one of the two, in England. He said to me the other day, he doesn’t like the word atheist because he doesn’t think there should be a special word for it, if you don’t have a word for saying you don’t believe in the Tooth Fairy.

A Different Argument: Interview with Christopher Hitchens in The Seattle Weekly

Popularity: 1% [?]