Norman Finkelstein at UCI?

Apparently Norman Finkelstein is coming to UCI again. In fact, he may be visiting very soon to discuss the Israeli-Arab conflict. Some in the community are stating the event will occur on May 9 sometime in the evening. I will update on this as soon as I come across more information.

Here are some quotes by Finkelstein:

“Elie Wiesel [is] resident clown of the Holocaust circus."
(Irish Times, “‘I Won’t Lie Down and Take the Insults.’”)

“Elie Wiesel is such a ridiculous character… The expression ‘There’s no business like Shoah-business’ is literally coined for him…He’s turned it in to a business, where he casts himself as a person who’s doing all this from anguish and pain and personal sacrifice, while he has made a fortune out of it.”
(Victor Frkle, ‘Shoa Business.’ Interview with Norman Finkelstein)

“Elie Wiesel…is such a wimp.”
(Norman Finkelstein, “The Holocaust Industry” (March 10, 2004)

“Thanks to Elie Wiesel we have a distorted and disfigured and frankly meaningless version of the Nazi Holocaust and we only know about those genocides that serve the interest of the U.S. and Israel, and we forget the ones that don't.”
(Victor Frkle, ‘Shoa Business.’ Interview with Norman Finkelstein)

Look Who Will Be Visiting UCI Again....

The following two events are listed on the MSU Week 5 E-Calendar:

WEDNESDAY
SPECIAL EVENT
Tarbiyyah Lecture –
7:45-9pm in HH178
Speaker – Amir Abdel Malik Ali
Topic – "The Methodology of the Islamic Movement"

THURSDAY
SPECIAL: Palestine Workshop with Discussion by Amir Abdel Malik Ali
7:45-9pm in SSTR 103
*Come to this very rare workshop opportunity that will help you increase your knowledge on the situation of our brothers and sisters in Palestine.

UPDATE: According to the MSU, the Wednesday event has been canceled. The event on Thursday, however, is still on.

"Holocaust Memorial Week" Hosted by the MSU, SPJ and WSA

Just saw this event and thought I should post immediately.

The MSU is, once again, manipulating the Holocaust to push their anti-Israel agenda. Although the Holocaust is a term that refers to the plight of Jewish people from Europe during World War II, the MSU continuously insists on promoting their despicable events with the use of this term.

Here is a schedule for this "Holocaust Memorial Week" that will begin May 8th:

Tuesday

What: Survivng the Nazis
Who: Hedy Epstein, Holocaust Survivor
Where: Cross Cultural Center
When: Tues May 8th at 6PM

Wednesday

What: The Atlantic Graveyard: an African Holocaust
Who: Imam Abdel Aleem Musa
Where: HIB 178
When: Wed May 9th at 6 PM

Thursday

What: Manifest Destiny and the American Holocaust
Who: Professor Ward Churchill
Where: Crystal Cove Auditorium
When: Thurs May 10th at 8 PM
cosponsored by MECHA

The Real Jimmy Carter; FrontPageMagazine

The following article is from FrontPageMagazine.com. I thought it was appropriate given that Jimmy Carter will be visiting UCI this Thursday.
----------------
The Real Jimmy Carter

By Alan M. Dershowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 30, 2007

I have known Jimmy Carter for years. I first met him in the spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for president, he sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign on issues of crime and justice. I had just published an article in The New York Times Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my ideas and asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign. Shortly thereafter, my former student, Stuart Eisenstadt, brought Carter to Harvard to meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked Jimmy Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on to his campaign and worked very hard for his election.

When Newsweek magazine asked his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for advice, my name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over the years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we briefly discussed the Mid-East. Though I disagreed with some of his points, I continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep commitment to principle and to human rights.

Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief in his integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward in the name of Shiekh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money, even after Harvard returned money from the same source because of its anti-Semitic history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such apparent integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?

And let there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know because I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard University to return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity School received from this source. Initially, I was reluctant to put pressure on Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a student at the Divinity School, Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts.

They were staggering. I was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still foundations that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and Follow-up, a think-tank funded by the Shiekh and run by his son, hosted speakers who called Jews "the enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John Kennedy to Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States' own military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also hosted a speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money back. To his discredit, Carter did not.

Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it was highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he said in accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me because it is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan." Carter's personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and all-around bigot.

In reading Carter's statements, I was reminded of the bad old Harvard of the nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after the anti-Semitic policies of Hitler's government became clear. Harvard of the nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that Jimmy Carter of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.

The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence on, dirty money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply troubling. Carter and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect sources, beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in the late 1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank indirectly controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal investors is Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the bank, gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects."

Carter gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank, ostensibly the source of his funding, "the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists." BCCI isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed millions to the Carter Center "in 1993 alone...$7.6 million" as have other members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million dollar pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal $500,000 environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the Prime Minister of the United Arab Emirates. It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding the Carter Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human rights abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity whatever in Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a steep price. The bought quality of the Center's activities becomes even more clear, however, when reviewing the Center's human rights activities in other countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in North Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity regarding Israel and its alleged abuses, according to the Center's website.

The Carter Center's mission statement claims that "The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities." How can that be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its focus is away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel's far less serious ones?

No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has been and remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi Arabia. Does this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his thinking about the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask Carter.

The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American foreign policy is that money talks. It is Carter, not me, who has made the point that if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not free to decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is Carter, not me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly report on the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by Carter's own standards, it would be almost economically "suicidal" for Carter "to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East must be discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them. Money, particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people to a particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having received so much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his failure to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money, and the absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money has unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette industry, and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a safe form of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to smoke. These people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that they are fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or persuading us to believe that he is fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views as Carter insists "Jewish money" does, Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed to have been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If he who pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have been called by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now believe that there is no person in American public life today who has a lower ratio of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public perception of his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now turns out, is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former American politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the highest bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now Jimmy Carter's sad legacy.

Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

No Backpacks, Signs, Cameras or Cell Phones Allowed at Carter's Talk

Today@UCI reports the following regarding Jimmy Carter's visit this week:

Members of the UCI community may obtain ticket information at www.socsci.uci.edu/events/carter. Plans are being made to webcast the event live at that site for members of the public.

Also, note that backpacks, cell phones and cameras are not allowed at the event. Therefore, anyone who has a load of classes that day and has no where to put their backpack probably will have trouble attending the event. Signs and banners are also not allowed.

If I come across any more information on this, I will update.

Also, I will post questions that I and other students posed to Carter via the website on Thursday morning. It will be interesting to find out if any of our questions are asked and even more interesting to hear Carter's response.

Alert! Jimmy Carter is Coming to UCI!

I've always thought that departments at UCI were biased in their programming about Israel. I can't help but wonder at their reaction if I approach them about inviting Benjamin Netanyahu. Somehow I highly doubt that the university would be as responsive to pro-Israel programming. Maybe I ought to give it a try anyway.

I have a few interesting questions to ask Mr. Carter that I will submit on the website (see below). It's my understanding that only students will be able to pose questions.

If you are a UCI student and would like to demonstrate Carter's bias against Israel by asking a question but are uncertain about what kind of question to pose, please e-mail me (rrcohen@uci.edu).

Here is the info on the event:

Center for the Study of Democracy and Model United Nations, in association with Center for Citizen Peacebuilding and Department of Political Science, invite you to a lecture and discussion with Jimmy Carter, 39th President of the United States of America.

Thursday, May 3, 2007
10:30 - 11:30 a.m.
Bren Events Center

Admission is free, but tickets are required. Tickets are limited to one per person with proof of UC Irvine ID. Tickets are non-transferable and available on a first come, first served basis. For further ticketing and event information, please
visit http://www.socsci.uci.edu/events/carter/

Former President Carter will address student-based questions pertaining to the Middle East, Palestine, and Israel. If you are interested in submitting a
question, please visit http://www.socsci.uci.edu/events/carter/question.php Questions must be submitted by noon on Wednesday, May 2, 2007.

For further information, please visit our event website, http://www.socsci.uci.edu/events/carter/

Staff Director of United States Commission on Civil Rights to Speak at UCI

Ken Marcus, staff director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, will be speaking at UCI this Thursday. The event is sponsored by StandWithUs, the Anteaters for Israel and Hillel.

Time: Thursday, April 26 at 7pm.

Location: Room 1101, Berkeley Place, University of California-Irvine. Berkeley Place is on the university campus, near the Social Sciences parking structure.

Background:

Mr. Marcus was appointed to his position by the President of the United States, with the concurrence of the Commission, serving as the agency's chief executive officer. He is a graduate of Williams College, magna cum laude, and the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. He has served as General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity in the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; he was later also delegated the authority of Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights. At the United States Commission on Civil Rights, Mr. Marcus supervised the preparation of many publications, including Campus Anti-Semitism (2006).

FYI: Anti-Israel Week in May

Every year, during the spring quarter, the Muslim Student Union (MSU) at UCI hosts an "Anti-Israel Week." Last year the MSU called their week "Holocaust in the Holyland." I have it under good authority that we can expect the MSU to host their events between May 15 to May 18 this year. The events are often in the "free speech" zone, the flagpoles, at UCI.
Events often feature Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Norman Finkelstein, Neturei Karta and other Anti-Zionist (aka Anti-Semitic) speakers. MSU members, moreover, like to dress up as IDF soldiers and pretend to be "oppressors." Last year members with the MSU marched around campus chanting "Anti-Israel," "Anti-Hate" and "Anti-Apartheid." Many Jewish and pro-Israel students reported being verbally and physically harassed during this week.

I do not anticipate that this year will be any different. Speakers often try to make the distinction between "Zionist Jews" and "Jews." It's pretty clear that they mean "Jews." Even if they mean "Zionist Jews" or "Israelis," I could care less. When one calls for Israel's annihilation, he is calling for the extermination of 6 million Jews currently living there. That is anti-Semitism.

I've included videos from events hosted during the last couple of years.

Muslim Students Outraged By New University Opinion Editorial

About a week ago an article entitled “Islam is not a Peaceful Religion” was published in the New University (UCI’s official newspaper).

I was not surprised at the outrage directed against the author of the article. I was also not surprised that some individuals who responded, whether by writing an article in response or a letter-to-the-editor, called for censorship and accused the author of hate speech.

Considering that students with the Muslim Student Union abuse their rights of free speech all year round by bringing rabid anti-Semitic and anti-Israel speakers, their desire for censorship is ludicrous. No one tries to restrict the MSU’s right to free speech. Many, myself included, have criticized the group. However, we recognize that calling for the group to be censored or restricted is not the solution.

My point is that if one enjoys rights to free speech, they cannot suggest that another individual is not entitled to those same rights. I don’t e-mail the New University editors when a Muslim student writes anti-Israel diatribe and demand retractions or apologies. Instead, I will request to respond to the article in a diplomatic fashion without criticizing the school paper for guaranteeing First Amendment rights.

I’ve included the articles and the letters-to the-editors for your convenience.

A couple quick points I'd like to make regarding the following articles/letters…

Islam is the fastest growing religion because more people practice it than any other religion. Logically it makes sense to assume that people already practicing the religion will procreate and that their children will grow up practicing Islam. Muslims generally have more than one child so there isn’t an issue of population decline. People do convert to Islam. However, I doubt that this is the largest contributing factor in the increase in practicing Muslims.

I understand that many Muslims feel hurt that their religion is associated with terrorism. Nevertheless, one only has to look at the Middle East to see why this association is made. Even if Israel didn’t exist, Islamic terrorism would still be prevalent.

-------------------------------

Islam Is a Just Religion, Not a Violent Religion
Commentary

By Muneeb Baig

Jesse Nickles’ article, “Islam Is Not a Peaceful Religion,” April 16, was typical of the daily rants against Islam promulgated through the media—ignorant and arrogant.

Nickles claims authority to attack an entire religion based on the English translation of one verse and the mention of one relatively recent incident. His article shows what wonders scant knowledge combined with plenty of arrogance can produce.

Interestingly, Nickles simultaneously claims to love Muslims. Thanks, but no thanks. Someone saying that “I love Christians, but Jesus taught evil” could not be more hypocritical.

Nickles centers his argument on the concept of “nashk” (properly spelled “naskh”), the superseding of certain verses in the Qur’an or sayings of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam (May Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), with later verses or sayings.

Unfortunately, he is entirely misinformed about even the basics of Islam. Contrary to Nickles’ assertion that Muslims have done this throughout history, naskh is in fact the sole prerogative of God who revealed new verses or instructed his prophet with new injunctions. Only God can command or nullify a command.

The verse Nickles did not read was this: “This day have I perfected for you your religion and completed My favor on you and chosen for you Islam as a religion.” (Al-Maidah, 5:3) This verse clearly established the completion of the religion and a confirmation from the Divine that this law is to stay until the end of time. Naskh ended 1400 years ago.

Thus, the rights that Islam granted non-Muslims and minorities are permanent—immune to abrogation. So are the rules of conduct in war and peace. The Quran has survived miraculously intact in its original language for more than 14 centuries, despite the efforts of many opponents. Contrary to the experience of other religions in which laws have been modified repeatedly by followers, Islam does not experience mood swings.

The Quran commands Muslims to deal justly with non-Muslims: “O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that you do.” (5:8)

Consider a few examples from history: The conquest of Makkah occurred two years before the Prophet’s death, upon the enemies’ violation of a treaty with the Muslims. The Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, entered the city with more than 10,000 followers. This was the same city whose residents had persecuted him and his followers for 13 years in Makkah and did not leave them in peace when they migrated to Madinah. For years they had attacked, vilified and tortured his companions. The time was ripe for revenge, the entire city at his mercy. Yet the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, issued a general amnesty to the entire population.

Another example: When Umar ibn Al-Khattab, the second Caliph (successor to the Prophet), entered Jerusalem, he granted the inhabitants total security of their lives, possessions and places of worship. For the first time, Jerusalem was captured without mass slaughter. In addition, Jews, who had been banned under the Christians, were allowed to return to the city.

Umar was simply following what he learned from the Prophet Muhammad himself: that the protection of life, property and religious freedom of minorities is the religious duty of the Islamic state; that there is no compulsion in religion and that Muslims must be just to friends and foe alike.

The result of these teachings was a Muslim rule that set the gold standard for religious tolerance in a world that was not used to the idea. Not only are inquisitions, persecutions, witch hunts and holocausts that tarnish histories of other civilizations remarkably absent from Islamic history, but Muslims have protected minorities from persecution by others as well. As Marmaduke Pickthall noted: “It was not until the Western nations broke away from their religious law that they became more tolerant, and it was only when the Muslims fell away from their religious law that they declined in tolerance.” In Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasids, Christians and Jews enjoyed a freedom of religion that they did not allow each other or anyone else.

This exemplary tolerance stemmed only from Islamic teachings. The entire message of Islam is that this life is a test and we have the option of choosing the path to hell or to heaven. Prophets were sent to inform about the choices and to warn about the consequences. They were not sent to forcibly put the people on the right path. Similarly, Muslims must deliver the message of Islam to humanity as they have received it. They can neither change it, nor force others to accept it. After all, actions stem from faith. And faith is an affair of the heart. It simply cannot be imposed.

Thus, the term “Islamic terrorists” is an oxymoron. Terrorism is alien to Islam. However, the media has defined it in the exact opposite manner; only Muslims can be terrorists. Consider the recent shooting at Virginia Tech. The killer matched the definition of a terrorist. In addition, he left behind this message: “I die like Jesus Christ, to inspire generations of the weak.” (Could he be considered a Christian terrorist?) Yet he did not fit the media profile of a “terrorist,” so the extensive media coverage of the crime never mentioned terrorism.

Islamophobes thrive on spreading lies and fear. Unfortunately, Nickles is no different. His goal is to whip up frenzy for a war on Islam. He accuses Islam of allegedly expecting submission “from both Muslims and non-Muslims” and then cries, “It is now the fastest-growing religion in the world.”

But one really ought to question, why is Islam growing? If Islam were truly as violent and demanding of subjugation as described, why would anyone outside the Muslim world want to convert? Why, despite the material weakness of Muslims and the endless media and military onslaught on Islam and Muslims, are increasing numbers of people in the Western world finding the truth in Islam? I leave it to the reader to find out. Get a copy of the Quran and read it yourself. You’ll be glad you did.

Muneeb Baig is a third-year computer science major and a member of the Muslim Student Union.

----------------------------

Letters to the Editor

New U Irresponsible for Publishing Anti-Islam Piece

By Readers

I’m a second-year medical student at UC Irvine, and I picked up an issue of the campus newspaper this morning to find an article titled “Islam Is Not a Peaceful Religion.” In the article, the author actually argues that the fundamentals of Islam are based on violence, and goes on to say that any Muslim who practices the full extent of the teachings of Islam is a terrorist (see last paragraph). Wow! I am shocked and appalled that such an article is allowed in the paper, opinion or not. This is simply hate speech masked under an “opinion” given with the disclaimer that “I personally love Muslim people, but their religion is a violent one.”

All of these conclusions are based on mis-citations of historical events. The author argues that all instances of aggression under other religions (in this case Hitler and Christianity) are a perversion of the religion, while the use of Islam by aggressors is representative of the religion. Without getting into how insanely wrong this individual is in his claim, I will get to the point of my letter.

I am writing because this is simply hate speech, and it was published by the campus paper. How can you possibly allow an article like this into the paper? I personally have no religious views, but I am appalled that any of this language got into the campus paper. The claims made in the article are unfounded and the last paragraph implies that the practice of Islam should be banned in the United States (yet the KKK can still legally hold rallies?) How can you let such misguided and hateful ideas be propagated through a campus newspaper? An opinion is one thing, but hate speech is another. Not only will I never pick up another issue of your newspaper (if it is so poorly run as to allow such trash to be published), but demand that you issue a formal apology and a retraction of this article. If you are training to be a journalist, you should make sure there is a valid basis for an article and that it is based on facts rather than misguided opinion and false accusations

Pooya Javidan
Second-year
UCI School of Medicine

--------------------

I am writing regarding an article published in the UC Irvine student paper, titled “Islam Is Not a Peaceful Religion.” I have to say, the article opened my eyes to a whole new aspect of my religion. I thought that I was a practicing Muslim, but apparently I am not since I have never been involved in any of the killing sprees that have occurred in this country or anywhere else for that matter. I guess, being a non-Westerner, I lacked the proper mental ability to figure that out for myself, and I am not the only one, since there are millions of Muslims in the U.S. not committing murders as they are supposed to.

Now that we agree on how evil Islam and Muslims are, we should concentrate on what to do to them. Jesse Nickles suggests making Islam illegal, like communism. I completely agree with this, but I hope he is suggesting this only as a first step. Given the history of this country and other Western countries, much more can be done. The Germans concentrated people they didn’t like in camps, Christian Americans placed Natives in reservations and deprived Africans of their freedom, white Australians almost completely wiped out the Aborigenes and Jewish Israelis cleared most Palestinians out of their land. And that’s not even mentioning what Western countries did to people they colonized all throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. Like I said, Judeo-Christian history is full of examples of dealing with nonpeaceful people, and I think stopping at just making Islam illegal would be doing the future of America and its past injustice.

I am glad that Nickles pointed out that Thomas Jefferson actually fought Islamic injustice; I was under the impression his accomplishments were limited to taking land from the natives, enslaving Africans and sleeping with at least one of his slaves. Apparently, there is much more to Jefferson. I am glad that we can still follow his example when dealing with people who are different in the 21st century.

Finally, I would like to thank all the New University newspaper staff and editors for taking this first step to combating Muslims and Islam in America. Although publishing articles like this is only a small step, it’s a very important step in the right direction. History would show us that combating minorities in the West, whoever they were, Jews, Africans or Native Americans, starts off with vilification through the media. When tougher actions are taken against Muslims you can all be proud of yourselves.

Abulrahman Al-Kahtaly
fourth-year biology major
University of Southern California

Please Be Civil and Tactful While Commenting

IDF Remembrance Day is a day of mourning for Israelis. Apparently some individuals are incredibly tactless and unremorseful, choosing to desecrate the memory of the dead in their attempt to push their political “anti-Israel” agenda. A few individuals have left comments in response to two videos I posted in memory of IDF soldiers.

IDF Remembrance Day is a tough day for many Israelis who have lost loved ones. Personally, this is a day in which I remember my family and friends who have died defending their country.

The comments I’ve read demonstrate a disregard for human life, tactlessness and tremendous incompetence. I am not surprised.

I will not disable comments at this point. Just because anyone can comment, however, does not imply that hateful comments will be tolerated.

IDF731, a reader who responded to some of the vile comments, showed restraint. I know that it’s much easier to stoop to the level of the people who are cursing at you and attacking your culture. This reader, nonetheless, was able to make his point with taking a stab at diplomacy. Although the reader was clearly upset, he refrained from using expletives. Here is some of his comment:

The innocent Muslim student is complaining and cursing the IDF/Israelis for oppressing and being violent. Is the IDF the army that shoots kassam and qatyusha rockets at civilians? Ummm NO! Are the Israeli citizens blowing themselves up at civilian targets? NO! Are Jewish mothers sending their kids to become bombers? NO! And which people sent a 16 year old boy who suffered from Down's Syndrome to an Israeli check point while packed with explosives? …. What about the bombers in Iraq? Should we blame the Israeli's for that too? You probably say yes, perhaps you blame the Jews for global warming? Before you point your little finger at Israel, look in the mirror.

As far as your language, clean it up…. does your holy Muhammed talk like you? Does he repeat the F word in every other sentence, Grow up, little one. You act is if you know something about the IDF, the guy who cleans toilets for the IDF knows more about history than you do…. Concerning your comment about me respecting Islam, well I do. I respect not because its politically correct to say so, but I respect because my religion teaches me to respect others. Many Muslims in certain countries act as terrorists, but not all. I don’t generalize, and I refuse to condemn an entire religion because of some clown like the one writing those stupid comments. I am a Zionist, I'm proud of it, but I'm also a reasonable person who respects others. By the way, by cursing my people and IDF all you are doing is just showing us that you are a loser….

Suicide Killers, Documentary by Pierre Rehov

Pierre Rehov's documentary is an excellent glimpse into the psychological attitudes of a suicide bomber. Just a warning-- some of the images are disturbing in this clip.

A Tribute to the IDF Soldiers

In memory of the IDF soldiers who perished during the second Lebanon war.

לזכר חללי צה"ל שנהרגו במלחמת לבנון השניה

Yom Haatzmaut

Come celebrate Israel's 59th Birthday on Wednesday, April 25!

There will be free food and great music, and lots more.

This event will be taking place right on campus in Aldrich Park from 12:00pm-2:00pm. Please come out and show your support!

IDF Remembrance Day 2007

IDF Remembrance Day begins Sunday evening.

The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs reports:

A total of 22,305 men and women have been killed defending the land of Israel since 1860, the year that the first Jewish settlers left the secure walls of Jerusalem to build new Jewish neighborhoods. In the past year, since Remembrance Day 2006, 233 members of the security forces - police, IDF, Border Police, Israel Security Agency and other organizations - have been killed in the service of the state - 119 in the Second Lebanese War.

Photo is courtesy Zionecon.

Yehi zichram baruch!

Virginia Tech Campuswide Candlelight Vigil at UCI

Event: Virginia Tech Campuswide Candlelight Vigil

When: Monday, April 23rd; 6:45pm-7:45pm

Where: At UCI; Anteater Plaza/Flagpoles


Hope to see everyone there.

Gedenk: "Adon Olam Ad Matai?"

Hat Tip: Concerned UCI Student

Israeli rapper Subliminal (Kobi Shimoni) and Grammy Award winning violinist Miri Ben-Ari release a haunting version of Adon Olam.



They are releasing this as part of the Gedenk (Remember) Movement. According to the website, Gedenk promotes education in today's youth through art and education:

Gedenk is a word that means “remember” in Yiddish, a language that died along with the six million Jews that perished in the Holocaust. Gedenk is a movement established in 2006 as a humanitarian campaign that promotes youth education about anti-Semitism and the Jewish Holocaust. Gedenk will use commercial outlets, i.e. music, dance, billboards and celebrities, to communicate its message and make the Jewish Holocaust relevant to today’s youth. Those that do not speak up are as guilty as the criminals themselves!

Obsession Screening at UCI; April 19

Event: Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against the West
Host(s): College Republicans at UCI and Anteaters for Israel
When: Thursday, April 19 at 6:45pm
Where: UC Irvine - ICS 174

Here is a 12 minute clip from the documentary:

New University: Iran Crisis Not a Failure of Western Diplomacy

The following is a response to an appalling article written by the New University's Editorial Board last week. You can read last week's article here.
------
Letters to the Editor

Iran Crisis Not a Failure of Western Diplomacy

After reading the Op-ed piece entitled “Iran Crisis Was a Failed Opportunity for West” (April 9), I was both shocked and outraged by the lack of insight and supporting evidence for many of the claims made. At the start of the article, the author writes that the resolution of the crisis was more important than its beginning. This is a completely misleading statement, because the manner in which these British sailors were captured was both illegal and purposefully inflammable. I would argue that the nature of the conflict’s resolution was sculpted by Iran’s initial actions and, therefore, they are more important and influential to the crisis. What motivation could the Iranian regime have in capturing the British sailors so quickly and without warning other than trying to be purposefully confrontational? Though it is true that the exact location of the British soldiers at the time of capture is still being debated and neither side has comprehensive evidence, isn’t that information rather erroneous? Even if a single British ship were to momentarily cross the sea boundary line separating Iranian and Iraqi waters, it would seem in Iran’s best interest to stay as disconnected as possible from the mess in Iraq. This is, naturally, because of the fear of U.S., British or Israeli intervention in Iranian activities. Therefore, it seems illogical for Iran to want to heighten tensions in the region unless it is trying to evoke a certain reaction from the West.

Regarding the issue on whether the situation was a failure for Western diplomats, the reality is that it should not have been a crisis to begin with. The author of this article states that Britain could have used this crisis to build bridges with Iran, but that would send a completely flawed message. In short, the message would acknowledge to our enemies that if they create an international crisis, we will bend over backwards to be diplomatic and give up concessions for a malicious act of aggression. In my opinion, Western diplomats handled this situation exactly as it should have been handled. After condemning the Iranian nuclear program and the U.N. Security Council passing economic sanctions against Iran, it would be nothing but foolishness to try and build bridges following the unjust capturing of 15 servicemen. Coming out and calling Iran the “bigger man” in this crisis is simply a mistake. To use your analogy of the two kids fighting, it would be like one kid stealing a toy from the other—but after the toy has been stolen, the parents force the victimized child to apologize, and then praise the aggressor when he returns the toy. Unnecessary acts of aggression should not be tolerated nor praised, and the “bigger man” is not necessarily the country that acts first.

The act of defending pseudo-kindness (forced kindness) and the pointing of fingers at ourselves has become an all-too-prevalent view in the United States. Too often, we see our own citizens and those of our allies placing all of the blame for every international crisis on their own governments. Granted, there are many instances where this is partially true, such as the Iraq War, but this crisis with the British sailors was both instigated and manipulated by Iran. Why would one believe that Iran would cooperate in diplomatic efforts to return these sailors when it has resisted virtually every single mandate passed down by the U.N. and the International Atomic Energy Agency regarding its nuclear program? Much like the infamous boy who cried wolf, Iran is long past the point of Western powers taking them seriously. At the end of the article, it states that negotiating with Iran would have made Britain appear stronger, but that is completely wrong. How does it make Britain appear stronger when a smaller power can capture their soldiers and receive a seat at the negotiating table for doing so? Answer: It doesn’t. Diplomacy is a two-way street, and Iran was taking up the entire road on this one.

Michael Moore
fourth-year political science major

Daniel Pipes Releases Comments Regarding UCLA Event

Daniel Pipes released comments on his website regarding the UCLA L.O.G.I.C. event last week.

On January 31, 2007 students at UC Irvine protested Dr. Pipes' presentation at UCI. The UCI Muslim community made up the majority of the protesters, releasing publications ahead of time and literature in order to "expose Pipes." At the event, students with the Muslim Student Union and less than a handful of La Rouche Youth shouted at Pipes and continued their hateful display outside.

However, the disturbance at UCI was far greater and a lot more volatile than at UCLA. It appears that the majority of the protesters at UCLA were far-left individuals and not necessary members of the Muslim Students Association.

Here is what Pipes had to say on his website about the disruption at UCLA:

Despite predictions of a riot, the audience was overwhelming civil and even friendly to the panelists. A disruption began just as I argued for the need to defeat Islamists not just in the battlefields of Afghanistan but also in "the classrooms of UCLA." The disrupters made up a tiny proportion of the audience, perhaps 2 percent, and they found themselves booed and told to "get out" of the hall, which they did. The panel then proceeded, ignoring drumming and other sounds coming from outside the hall.

New University: Islam is Not a Peaceful Religion

By Jesse N. for the New University:

Islam Is Not a Peaceful Religion

By Jesse N.

I love Muslims. The few Muslim nations that I’ve visited are home to some of the most hospitable and generous people I have ever met. However, this does not change the politically incorrect fact that Islam is an ideology that inherently promotes violence, subjugation and inequality.

You see, when the claim is submitted that “Islam is a peaceful religion,” it is most always based on the fact that most Muslims are peaceful people. This, however, only confirms the fact that most humans of the world pursue peaceful lives, without truly addressing the ideology itself.

I could easily construct an argument calling solely upon the news photos I see regularly of women being beaten in Kabul, or the mutilated bodies of Hindus in Bangladesh, or the toddlers dressed up as suicide bombers in Palestine, or a Ronald McDonald statue being burned in Pakistan. I could even point out the fact that the Muslim world seems to have continually bloody borders: central and east Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, central Asia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Philippines, etc.—but I suppose these would be cheap shots.

Many ideologies in the world that, by their nature, seek “good” have been perverted to accomplish “evil.” Hitler justified his wars by claiming allegiance with Christianity. The perversions justified by the Catholic Church, likewise, are almost limitless—and interestingly, they have yet to add “Mein Kampf” to their “Index of Forbidden Books.” There are other non-religious, well-meaning ideologies that have less than ideal results, like Communism.

Islam is different from many “well-meaning” religious and social ideologies in that the ideology itself contains oppressive elements—it requires no perverting. In Arabic, the word “Islam” means “submission” (to the will of Allah); which is what Islam expects from both Muslims and non-Muslims, according to the Quran. It is now the fastest growing religion the world.

Ultimately, much of the inconsistency in Islamic ideology comes from the concept of “nashk”—the idea of abrogating older ideas with newer ones. The very core of Islam is built upon this idea: the words of Christ are said to abrogate any conflicting commands of past Jewish texts, and the words of Muhammad are said to abrogate any conflicting commands of Christ. But since Muhammad’s death, his descendants and followers have routinely declared additions and subtractions from original Islamic theology in this same spirit of nashk. Hence the ensuing chaos: Sunni versus Shiite, Egypt versus Iran, Osama bin Laden versus… well, I suppose most ayatollahs hate America these days, too.

But most major Islamic texts and religious leaders seem to agree on one thing—that violence is desirable, or at least justifiable, against non-Muslims and “hypocritical” Muslims. In Surah 9:29 of the Quran, for example, it states: “Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture, until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

In other words, non-Muslims must either convert to Islam, pay a heavy tax to Muslims or face war. This verse, according to mainstream Islamic theology, abrogates earlier peaceful verses in the Quran that Muhammad wrote during the Mecca phase of Islam. Among other reasons for the shift, his new empire was short on money at the time.

Most Americans don’t realize that the very first foreign military engagement of the United States after gaining our independence was a response to proactive Muslim aggression—the First Barbary War, fought in the Mediterranean Sea. Muslim pirates had been demanding, and receiving, the Jizyah tax from American trade ships in exchange for safe passage, which eventually amounted to 20 percent of U.S. government annual revenues by the year 1800. In 1786, when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went to negotiate with Tripoli’s ambassador in London, they asked him by what right the pirates extorted money and took slaves. Jefferson reported to Congress: “The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet (Muhammad), that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.”

Upon Jefferson’s inauguration as president in 1801, further ransoms were denied, and a four-year war was eventually launched against Tripoli that ended in U.S. victory, now memorialized in the U.S. Marine Hymn. Ironically, it was Jefferson’s Quran that U.S. Congressman Keith Ellison was recently sworn in on.

Many Muslims respond to exposures like this by saying that verses have been “mistranslated” and that one cannot truly understand Islam without speaking Arabic. This is a hilarious defense when you realize that there are more Muslims in Indonesia than in all Arab nations combined—and yet, the growth of al-Qaeda and other violent Muslim groups doesn’t seem to be phased by so-called “mistranslation” in that part of the world, let alone anywhere. In fact, according to PBS, only 12 percent of Muslims worldwide are Arab, and the vast majority of Arab Americans are Christian.

There is no such thing as Muslim extremists. There are only those that follow the teachings of Islam and those that don’t. Islamic “terrorists” simply choose to follow all such teachings, while most Muslims reject the teachings that they sensibly, and commendably, conclude are oppressive—even though they have trouble condemning Islamic “terrorists” dogmatically. It is a bizarre situation when an American can’t legally be a Communist in some states, but is allowed to propagate an ideology that calls for the outright destruction of our country.

Official Videos from L.O.G.I.C. Event

Official videos from UCLA's L.O.G.I.C. event are available here for free.

The panel discussion at UCLA featured Daniel Pipes, Wafa Sultan, and Yaron Brook.

New University: Iran Crisis Was a Failed Opportunity for West

The following article is simply ridiculous. Yep, capturing unarmed soldiers for no reason and threatening to try them before Iranian court is a really fair practice and we should negotiate with their kidnappers? How utterly weak and silly.

--------------------

Iran Crisis Was a Failed Opportunity for West

By Editorial Board

Set aside for a moment the issue of whether Iran’s recent detainment of 15 British naval personnel was justified. More important than how their 13-day imprisonment began is how it ended.

Obviously, the best way the situation could have concluded was with the peaceful release of the Britons; anything else would have been unthinkable. It’s just unfortunate this happy resolution had nothing to do with Western diplomacy and everything to do with Western pride.

The idea that Iran should have been dealt with respectfully and diplomatically may be a difficult thing to accept, let alone hear. We in the West are far more accustomed to kicking ass and taking names than to listening patiently and taking the moral high road.

And neither is this a condoner of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial or apparent eagerness to kick-start World War III with his aggressive stance on Iran’s nuclear program. No, this is something in between: a plea for moderation, understanding and acceptance.

The fact is, the Middle East is a mess and always has been, even before the Western world got involved. We all want peace and prosperity in the region (some more than others), but constant military intervention hasn’t proven to be the answer.

This could have been an opportunity for Britain to generate a little goodwill between the West and one of our most intractable adversaries. Instead, it quickly devolved into posturing and stubborn we-said/they-said politicking.

If this dispute were between two children fighting in the backseat of an SUV over who crossed the line into “my side,” as opposed to two world leaders arguing over an international border, almost any parent’s response would be, more or less, “That’s enough! I don’t care who started it—both of you just settle down, be quiet and play nice.”

Granted, international diplomacy is a trifle more complicated than this – for one thing, there aren’t any parents – but the principle is still valid. With no one to force civility on Britain and Iran, it was up to each side’s leader to be “the bigger man” and make the first move toward reconciliation. Why did that man end up being Iran?

Of the two sides involved, Britain is clearly in a far greater position of power. In fact, they’re so powerful compared to Iran that humbling themselves enough to sit down and talk with the Iranians, face to face, wouldn’t have reduced their influence on the world stage in the slightest. Quite the opposite: It would have been a magnanimous gesture to give Iran even a tiny bit of the respect and consideration they feel they deserve as a nation.

This, however, wasn’t an option—at least, not publicly. British Prime Minister Tony Blair said the 15 were freed “without any deal, without any negotiation, without any side agreement of any nature.” Bold words, but that only makes him look worse in light of Ahmadinejad’s release of the captives on the day of Mohammad’s birth, and in commemoration of both Jewish Passover and Christian Easter.

Think about that. Ahmadinejad, widely derided as an ultra-conservative bully and worse, captures a handful of British soldiers to win points with the Middle East. Instead, he ends up winning points with the world at large by releasing his “detainees” in a bold publicity coup that ties together the world’s three major religions.

Iran stood up to Britain—and won. Impossible as it seems, by choosing to release the 15 on his own terms (or appearing to—either way) instead of being strong-armed into it, Ahmadinejad elevated himself above the petty squabbling of the previous 13 days and proved to be, however briefly, a more capable statesman than his Western counterpart.

Imagine if Blair had taken the bull by the horns on day two and said, “It’s uncertain whether our soldiers crossed over into Iranian territory, but since that’s not as important as the lives and well-being of our people, we apologize for any misunderstanding and wish to discuss the terms of their release immediately.”

If this seems unreasonable, ask yourself this: Since when is it unreasonable for diplomats to be diplomatic? He would have acted, not reacted, and in doing so he would have controlled the situation.

Had the British government chosen to publicly negotiate, it wouldn’t have been a sign of weakness, but one of strength. The world could have pointed to Blair’s efforts and said, “He brought them home.” Instead, at whom are we pointing? Ahmadinejad.

Peace in the Middle East isn’t going to be cheap but if we have to pay for it, let’s do so in pride rather than more lives. Someone’s going to have to start making some concessions—why not us? A little respect now could go a long way later.

It was Britain today but it could be America tomorrow. If it is, let’s learn from recent events instead of repeating them.

Upcoming Event at UCLA Featuring Distinguished Speakers

Hat Tip: Eric Brunner; President of UCI's Objectivist Club

Here's the info-
Event Title:
Totalitarian Islam’s Threat to the West

Who:
Dr. Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum
Dr. Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute
Dr. Wafa Sultan, outspoken critic of Islam and author of the forthcoming book “The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster” What: A panel discussion on the threat of Islamic totalitarianism and how to deal with it

Where:
UCLA Campus: Moore 100, Los Angeles, CA
Map: http://www.ucla.edu/map/map_ucla.pdf

When:
Thursday, April 12, 2007, at 7:00 PM
Admission is FREE.

Description:
From the Iranian hostage crisis to September 11 to the London subway attacks to the Iraqi insurgency—it is clear the West faces a grave threat from a committed enemy. Conventional wisdom holds that the enemy is a rogue group of fanatics, who have hijacked a great religion in order to justify their crimes. It tells us there is no way to permanently eliminate these violent groups, that we have entered an “age of terror” and that we must give up the desire for a decisive victory. But is the conventional wisdom right?

A distinguished panel of Middle East experts will provide new and illuminating answers to the most important questions of our time: Is the West ready to concede victory so easily? Are the terrorists a fringe group of fanatics, or are they part of a much wider ideological movement? What threat do they pose to the West? What can the West do to ensure victory? Is peace possible? While the experts will answer these complex questions from diverse points of view, they all agree on one thing: Islamic totalitarianism is a real threat, and the right response necessitates engaging in a principled, ideological battle to defend the West from the jihad declared against it.

Haryn Yahya/Adnan Oktar: Holocaust Denier to Speak at MSU Program... Again

Hat Tip: Concerned UCI Student

On the surface it appears that the MSU is trying to hold a creationism conference at UCI at the end of April or beginning of May.

However, a closer look suggests that this may be more than just a creationism conference, and perhaps attempts to validate Islam as the one true religion and to push for da’wah (a call to non-believers to convert to Islam).

Haryun Yahya is the proposed speaker at the event. Haryun Yahya is the pen name of a Turkish creationist whose real name is Adnan Oktar.According to Wikipedia, while Oktar has statements on his website denounce anti-Semitism, he is largely anti-Zionist, anti-Mason and also credited as a Holocaust denier. Oktar’s book Soykirim Yalani literally translates to The Holocaust Hoax. In another article entitled “The Truth About the Holocaust,” Oktar quotes Norman Finkelstein twice. Although this article states that the Holocaust did occur, it presents gross misrepresentations and conspiracy theories regarding the Holocaust.

Funny that in one text Oktar is largely denouncing the Holocaust and in another he attempts to present himself as a moderate voice that merely addresses the “exploitation” of the Holocaust. The MSU email suggests that the goal date for the conference would be during the fifth week of this quarter. This would be a week after the Israeli Independence Day, which falls this year on April 24th. The date would also fall two weeks before Nakba Day - May 15 - the day Palestinians mark to mourn the creation of Israeli country.

Here’s an e-mail explaining this program: Aïcha Sebaa writes:

> Date: 04 Apr 2007 02:27:30 -0700
> To: MSU-UCI-Board@googlegroups.com,
> msu-uci@yahoogroups.com
> From: "Aïcha Sebaa"
> Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 23:51:49 -0700
> Subject: [msu-uci] Harun Yahya Conference @ UCI!!
>
> essalaamu`alaikum wa rahamtulLah,
> inshaAllah you are all doing great!
> Here is some exciting news...
> inshaAllah we are hoping to hold a Harun Yahya
> Conference on campus early
> May (most likely, week 5)! :D
> For more information please visit:
> www.harunyahya.com
> www.harunyahyaconferences.com
> So, it would be great for us to choose a one awesome
> potential topic!
> Please go to the following website to choose a topic
> by Friday 4/6 at
> 11:59pm:
> http://www.msu-uci.com/?page=Vote
> jazakumAllahu khairan, wessalaamu`alaikum
>

Grooming a New Generation of Suicide Bombers

Hamas teaching babies to want to grow up to die:



So much for peace.