A SERIES OF SPEAKERS DEBATE THE QUESTION
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
3/8 , i THINK, MEANS THE 3RD SPEAKER OF 8
Ted, I think this is a reprint from 2-8-19, not 3-8-19.
More on the obscene murder of Ori Ansbacher:
The brutal, obscene murder of Ori Ansbacher, an innocent Israeli girl , a rabbi’s daughter, by a Palestinian terrorist, should be known to every reader of Israpundit. It demonstrates that Israel cannot make peace with the Palestinians, at least without a complete transformation first of Palestinian Arab culture and values.
@ adamdalgliesh:
Thank you. I was afraid that I might have gone a little too far, with criticising his appearance and manner, but I felt compelled to mention it. I am totally in favour of his plans, and want them to succeed, so I’m just critical of the way he went about it. I commented on his weight a few months ago, and Ted assured me that he was on strict diet. Today he must weigh about 15-20% more than then. So it’s become a serious, potential health issue..at least I feel so. And, as I implied, people often don’t listen seriously to a fat, blustering man….. being more of an object of parody than otherwise.
@ Edgar G.: I think all of these comments are spot on, Edgar. Zahran is a good guy, and very courageous. He has taken a courageous step by supporting reconciliation between the Arabs and Israel. But he has personality problems which undercut his effectiveness as a politician, Also, he has to improve his personal appearance, dress, even weight, to be more effective.
Many of his shortcomings are connected to the Arab cultural milieu in which he was raised, and specifically Arab political culture. A strident, combative tone, boasting, exaggerated claims, ridiculing and belittling one political enemies, etc., are all part of the way Arab politics is customarily conducted. Of course, American political culture always contained some elements of this, and is now moving rapidly in that direction, both because of Trump’s personal discourse style and that of his enemies. But still, these behaviors have been carried to more extremes in Arab politics than what we are used to. Muhdar definitely needs to turn down the volume, both literally and figureatively, if he is to make any progress in buttoned down places like the Oxford Union, or even in American upper class establishment forums (still extremely influential in U.S. foreign policy making) like the State department, the CFR, Foreign Policy Association, Carnegie Institute, Brookings Institute, etc. In order to make progress in these influential circles, one must act like an upper-crust English or Anglo-Saxon American “gentleman.”
Edgar G. Said:
Hilarious, excuse me, delightfully amusing image, what?
@ adamdalgliesh:
It’s not a question of “agreeing with what he had to say. We ALL AGREE and want him to succeed. The way I felt, listening to him “working himself up” like a spluttering Model T. I would not have been surprised if he’d had a heart attack right there. His personal appearance was untidy and unimpressive. More like the proverbial Union leader. He didn’t mention being a fugitive from the king, nor the secrecy in which he had to live etc.etc. It would have taken 30 seconds only, and focused their attention.
It bothers me to see him so out of shape. How can he last long enough to do what he wants It really does trouble me. Also his bluster made him -to me at any rate- a bit incoherent, and I doubt if the audience was able to catch all that he said, nor was as impressed with it as they could have been. They knew, in their semi-snobbish way, that their “guest” -obviously an amateur-would be eager to make an impression and likely spent more of their attention in studying his grimaces and mannerisms, than actually listening to the content.
I have an instinct for matters such as this, and with my earlier posts, are my candid opinion.
I agree with much of what Mudar Zahran has to say, on this occasion as on many other occasions. But I have have often been bothered by what I feel is Zahran’s hectoring, abrasive tone, not only in this video but in several earlier videos. Even his texts on his blog seem too aggressive and hectoring to me. Also, the speakers at many of the demonstrations that he distributes videos of on his blog also seem to do too much hectoring and shouting for my taste. I guess, however, that that is how everyone speaks and behaves at public rallies in the Arab world. Even when they debate on Arab television, the speakers adopt an agressive manner towards each other and sometimes fight physically. Arab culture is extremely aggressive and warlike. Always has been, I suspect. However, someone should have counseled Zahran that you can’t act like that when speaking to an English audience, especially an upper-class, “educated” English audience like that at the Oxford Union. English upper-class manners require one to be soft spoken if one is to be heard and taken seriously. You can even express extreme views and lie outrageously, provided you do it in an even, low-volume tone.
While Zahran’s overweightness is also off-putting, his appearance before he gained weight also bothered me. While his present puffy cheeks obscure his jaw, when he was lighter his jaw was very craggy and bulged out, and together with his bald head made him the spitting image of Benito Mussolini.
Of course a person’s appearance is not his fault. But someone has got to counsel Zahran that he cannot continue to adopt an Arab speaking style with British and American audiences if he is to gain support in these “Anglo-Saxon” countries.
I thought it was terrific but for the pauses. I know those pauses. They are the pauses of an actor struggling to recall his lines or of somebody formulating his thoughts as he speaks. The speech was good but it should have been memorized more thoroughly. Also the nervousness came through. The way classical musicians deal with this is through musicales. They have trial performances, as many as practical, in people’s living rooms with friends in attendance. Same program over and over until delivery becomes smooth, whether for a a concert, audition or Juries (final performance exams in music conservatories.) But, I liked it. I will share it on Facebook.
I discussed with Mudar his content and delivery and was quite critical. I felt that he should have prepared himself better and should not have been so bombastic though I see the value in being passionate.
@ Edgar G.:
I will repeat that I thought Mudar made his points if someone wanted to listen. These are not things one normally hears from Arabs/Palestinians/Jordanians.
Whether he was effective with audience you would have to poll them. Seemed like he received decent if not good applause if that is an indicator.
@ Ted Belman:
I don’t think that many Israel speakers are what could be called sanguine, rather, blunt and of little finesse…..
I appreciate that it’s your opinion, and I beg to differ.. I feel that his outrage at the Palestinians having been “betrayed”, could have been better expressed in a different tone, and by quickly running through some prime examples, which should have taken only a few minutes. The rest of his time could have been to project (and this should be his MAIN objective) “Statesmanlike Qualities” that would further enhance the sense of betrayal as well as turning them into probably sympathetic listeners who, later on would remember his name when it came into the news.
Instead he looked exactly like an ordinary, blustering, spluttering angry man, which his “lisp” didn’t help. The more aggrieved he worked himself into being, the more pronounced it seemed, actually taking attention away from the points he was making. …whereas when he speaks moderately, it is not really noticeable. ..He actually seemed (to me) to be forcing himself to be aggressive… Just my opinion.
Like you, and everyone with common-sense I am all for him to be able to do what he proposes… which Is why this kind of performance in an exclusive arena disturbed me.. Again, I emphasize, it’s only my opinion, and you are closer to the matter, and more likely to be correct.
Edgar G. Said:
The operative word is “chose”. I discussed his choice after the debate. Hesaid he chose to do so because it would drive up the point that he felt betrayed and wronged.. I mentioned to him that too often Jewish speakers are too sanguine whereas Arab speakers are usually passionate. In my opinion, their passion wins them supporters.
Watch the full debate here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCttBM2jK_E&list=PLOAFgXcJkZ2znanRgxZzuthmU3fxGB5lD?
@ Bear Klein:
Yes Bear, I did, and have no idea how it became addressed to you. Of course I have no idea about lots of things, and one prominent, is what’s in the mind of a computer… But either way, both Ted and you are able to read my post, and agree or disagree at your choice.
I personally, was VERY disappointed at the harsh, hectoring, abrasive manner in which Mudar chose to give his position. There was absolutely NOTHING Statesmanlike about it; rather that of an aggressive bully. When he speaks earnestly and modestly, which is his usual manner, he comes across far far better, sincere and entrely believable.
Just my opinion.
@ Edgar G.:
You addressed you comments to me. I believe you meant to address them to Ted? No?
@ Bear Klein:
A pity it was only a very short presentation. about 7-8 mins. Was it vigorously “edited’ or is this the normal time allowed to male one’s “case”…. I thought that he’d be speaking for at least 30-40 minutes, where he could have mentioned much that he didn’t. and laid out better, what he had no time to do. I could have listened to the whole meeting including questions and answers.
Some months ago you assured me that Mudar was on a very serious diet. This certainly seems NOT to be the case. He looks much fatter than he did then…. positively bulbous and bursting out of his clothes., Very unhealthy looking. and should take his condition more seriously.. A lot depends on it.
I also thought his delivery style all wrong, extremely belligerent and raucous, like an outraged onlooker whose toe had been trodden on with no apology.
Just my impression.
Mudar did an impressive presentation!
It was really painful to listen to the speakers who opposed the resolution because they trucked in bullshit.. Every sentence they uttered could be fully rebutted. They merely repeated the big lie in all its forms.
The good News is that the British establishment wanted to introduce Mudar Zahran to the world as the next leader of Jordan.