THE 'KING AND COUNTRY' DEBATE, 1933:
STUDENT POLITICS, PACIFISM AND THE DICTATORS
MARTIN CEADEL Imperial College, University of London
The Historical Journal, 222 (1979), pp.397-422
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2638871

On 9 February 1933 the Oxford Union debated and carried by 275 votes to 153
the motion 'That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and
Country'.

After a few days this became a major news story, first in Britain then also
in the world press: the British embassies in Madrid and Santiago cabled the
Foreign Office in alarm at the appearance of the story in the Spanish and
Chilean press.

The motion was taken up also by student debating societies all over Britain
and overseas: in the United States, for example, any pledge to take no part
in war came to be known as the 'Oxford pledge' or the 'Oxford oath'.

Since the debate, which took place ten days after Hitler had become
chancellor of Germany, appeared to contrast British liberal. pacifist
effeteness with fascist martial virility it was seized on in Germany and
Italy.

The Liberal M.P. Robert Bernays told the house of commons how he had been
asked about the debate later in 1933 by a prominent Nazi youth leader:
'There was an ugly gleam in his eye when he said: "The fact is that you
English are soft".

And on 7 July 1934 Alfred Zimmern, professor of international relations at
Oxford, wrote from Geneva to the former Union president responsible for the
debate: 'I hope you do penance every night and every morning for that
ill-starred Resolution, It is still going on sowing dragons' teeth. If the
Germans have to be knocked out a second time it will be partly your fault.
The bully believes we are "decadent" and that he can smash all the china he
likes."

===========================

Text: J Street sponsors evening in Jerusalem against Israeli security
despite own guidelines

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 16 January 20011

Let’s walk through this.

#1. J Street U is sponsored by J Street.

#2 This is from the "Statement of Principles" of J Street U
http://www.jstreetu.org/about/what-we-believe

"J Street U Supports...Israel’s right to exist as a ... sovereign nation
with the right to defend itself against external threats;"

Now keep your eye on the ball.

J Street U support Israel's right to defend itself against external threats.

The Statement of Principles doesn't qualify this with some radical line like
"J Street U support Israel's right to defend itself against external threats
via nonviolent means."

When J Street U states in its Statement of Principles that is supports
"Israel's right to defend itself against external threats" J Street U is
supporting Israel's right to have an army strong enough "to defend itself
against external threats."

#3 Now hold that thought and now consider the following evening sponsored by
J Street U Jerusalem:

J Street U Jerusalem presents Lochmim L'Shalom/Combatants for Peace
Join us for an evening with
Lochmim L'Shalom/Combatants for Peace

"only by joining forces will we be able to end the cycle of violence"

A group of Israeli Soldiers and Palestinian fighters who have decided to lay
down their arms and realize their vision of resolving the conflict by
peaceful means.

FREE
at Kehillat Yedidyah
12 Lifshitz st.
Baka, Jerusalem

January 26, 2011 7-9 PM

Let us know if you're coming on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=189381137754314

#4 Let's be clear on this, Combatants for Peace doesn't mean that Israeli
soldiers should symbolically "lay down their arms".

Here is how the organization presents its position:
http://cfpeace.org/?page_id=2

WE BELIEVE

...we declare that we refuse to take part any more in the mutual
bloodletting. We will act only by non-violent means...

That's right. These are Israeli soldiers who declare that they will not
participate in defending Israel against external threats.

#5. So while J Street U supports "Israel's right to defend itself against
external threats" , J Street Y's Jerusalem branch sponsors an evening
promoting a group that wishes to strip Israel of its ability to defend
itself against external threats.

Question: Will the J Street/J Street U leadership cancel the event?