Volume 4 No 1 - Journal for the Study of Antisemitism

228 JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF ANTISEMITISM [ VOL. 4:221
Hisballah, for example—but nothing that has engulfed the region. That’s
a huge and positive difference. 15
15. Robert Satloff, “Israel: Not Just a Strategic Asset, but a Strategic Bonanza,”
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 2010, 3. Satloff is also the author of
Among the Righteous: Lost Stories from the Holocaust’s Long Reach into Arab
Lands (Washington: Public Affairs, 2007). Six months before (January 20, 2010),
New York-based Intelligence Squared U.S. (IQ2), an affiliate of its London-based
counterpart, made available online the (anonymous) paper, “The US Should Step
Back from Its Special Relationship with Israel” with the proviso, “This briefing
was created by our colleagues at IQ2 in London and does not reflect our own views
or opinions, nor the views of any of our strategic partners or panelists, and we take
no responsibility for its contents.” According to its Web site, IQ2 provides a live
forum for a series of debates and aired on both television and radio:
Since its inception in 2006, the goals have been to provide a new forum
for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned
analysis; to transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological;
and to encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually
respectable views. This series is based on the traditional
Oxford-style debate format, with one side proposing and the other side
opposing a sharply framed motion. Before the debate begins, the audience
registers their pre-debate opinion using an electronic voting system.
These results are announced later in the program. Alternating
between panels, each debater gives a 7-minute opening statement. After
this segment concludes, the moderator opens the floor for questions
from the audience and inter-panel challenges. This adversarial context
is electric, adding drama and excitement. The debaters have one final
opportunity to sway audience opinion through their 2-minute closing
arguments. The audience delivers the final verdict by voting again
whether they are for, against, or undecided on the proposition. The two
sets of results are compared and the winner is determined by which
team has swayed more audience members between the two votes.
[Emphasis added—SLJ]
According to the information found, the debate on this topic took place February
9, 2010. For the proposition were New York Times columnist Roger Cohen and
Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi; opposing the proposition were former
U.S. government official and attorney Stuart Eizenstat and Israel academic and
former ambassador to the United States Itamar Rabinovich. Pre-debate poll results:
33% for/42% against/25% undecided; post-debate results: 49% for/47% against/4%
undecided. The moderator was ABC Nightline News correspondent John Donvan.
That such an “event” took place at all is more a reflection of the tenor of the
times—and a form of “intellectual entertainment”—rather than a serious analysis
and historical context of what’s really involved. The polling results are, equally,
more a reflection of the skill of the four panelists than a commitment of Americans
to become engaged in the political process and further advances the quasi-legitimacy
of arguments intended to devalue the relationship and delegitimize Israel on
the world and American stage. It must also be noted in this context that Chapter 2