KCET on Muslim-Jewish Tensions at UC Irvine
The Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine’s political events are distorted and out of context, which leads to people judging the Muslims on campus out of fear or prejudice, rather than listening objectively to what we have to say. One of our goals is to show people what Islam is all about.
This means that we will try to educate students on campus about issues that we feel we need to stand for. The Muslim Student Union has no "feud" with Jewish students at UC Irvine.
The MSU does not agree with the racist political ideology of Zionism. This is greatly at odds with how we see Judaism, however; we believe Judaism is a rich, beautiful faith that is rooted in the Abrahamic traditions.
Jews, as well as Christians, are considered our "brothers and sisters of the book" in Islam, and we are taught to treat them with respect. If we were to be anti-Semitic, it would go against the very ideals that our religion preaches. The conflict on this campus is over politics, not faith.
Marya Bangee
Spokesperson MSU-UCI
Friday, June 8, 2007
The Forgotten Pearl Harbor
Today, marks the 40th anniversary since an American Naval ship, the USS Liberty, came under attack off the coast of Egypt. There was an air bombardment which lasted about 25 minutes, followed by an attack from nearby navy vessels. In the end, a total of 34 American sailors were murdered in broad day light and by whom? Our dearest ally, the apartheid state of "Israel."
The Israelis claim that the attack was "a case of mistaken identity." They say that they confused the USS Liberty with an Egyptian ship, al-Quseir, which was supposedly firing on Israeli forces in the Sinai.
"But there was no Egyptian naval bombardment that day; nor did the al-Quseir bear any resemblance to the Liberty."
About six hours prior to the attack, Israeli planes were flying above the Liberty, studying the situation and observing the clearly marked American ship.
"A 5' by 8' American flag was hoisted early that morning and was flying all day until it was shot away by attacking aircraft. Within several minutes, it was replaced by the giant 9' by 13" holiday ensign, which flew for the duration of the attack."
The USS Liberty was unarmed and was one of the most technically advanced naval ships of that time. It consisted of "dozens of large antennas, including a large moon-bounce "satellite-dish" mounted on a tall structure near the stern. It may have been one of the most easily identifiable ships of any navy in the world. With a displacement of 10,000 tons, it was four times the size of the antique Egyptian transport it is claimed to have resembled. Freshly painted, the Liberty carried 10' high white identification numbers on its bow. Egyptian hull markings are painted black."
Many of the survivors are outraged that it has been 40 years and they still do not understand why they were attacked.
Why would Israel bomb an American navy vessel?
Well, there is a couple of explanations. First, the USS Liberty's sole purpose was to collect observations and data of the happenings in Egypt and Israel. Israel did not want to let the word get out of the atrocities that it was committing in Egypt.
Another explanation is that Israel wanted America to get involved in the 1967 war. So, by sinking the USS Liberty and blaming the Egyptians, America would be dragged into the war.
The 1967 US Navy Court of Inquiry originally accepted the Israeli version, but the chief attorney is now saying there was a cover-up.
"In not one of these investigations were any of the Liberty's surviving crewmembers permitted to publicly testify.
Recently, high government and military officials have suggested that not only was the attack deliberate, but that the US government covered up the incident. In 2003, an Independent Commission of Inquiry found that Israel committed "an act of war" against the United States (see Findings of Independent Commission).In addition, the Navy's chief attorney to the original 1967 military Court of Inquiry has issued a statement that orders to cover-up the incident were issued by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara [see Statement of Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAG (Ret.) (PDF)]. "
FAQ on the USS Liberty
The Israelis claim that the attack was "a case of mistaken identity." They say that they confused the USS Liberty with an Egyptian ship, al-Quseir, which was supposedly firing on Israeli forces in the Sinai.
"But there was no Egyptian naval bombardment that day; nor did the al-Quseir bear any resemblance to the Liberty."
About six hours prior to the attack, Israeli planes were flying above the Liberty, studying the situation and observing the clearly marked American ship.
"A 5' by 8' American flag was hoisted early that morning and was flying all day until it was shot away by attacking aircraft. Within several minutes, it was replaced by the giant 9' by 13" holiday ensign, which flew for the duration of the attack."
The USS Liberty was unarmed and was one of the most technically advanced naval ships of that time. It consisted of "dozens of large antennas, including a large moon-bounce "satellite-dish" mounted on a tall structure near the stern. It may have been one of the most easily identifiable ships of any navy in the world. With a displacement of 10,000 tons, it was four times the size of the antique Egyptian transport it is claimed to have resembled. Freshly painted, the Liberty carried 10' high white identification numbers on its bow. Egyptian hull markings are painted black."
Many of the survivors are outraged that it has been 40 years and they still do not understand why they were attacked.
Why would Israel bomb an American navy vessel?
Well, there is a couple of explanations. First, the USS Liberty's sole purpose was to collect observations and data of the happenings in Egypt and Israel. Israel did not want to let the word get out of the atrocities that it was committing in Egypt.
Another explanation is that Israel wanted America to get involved in the 1967 war. So, by sinking the USS Liberty and blaming the Egyptians, America would be dragged into the war.
The 1967 US Navy Court of Inquiry originally accepted the Israeli version, but the chief attorney is now saying there was a cover-up.
"In not one of these investigations were any of the Liberty's surviving crewmembers permitted to publicly testify.
Recently, high government and military officials have suggested that not only was the attack deliberate, but that the US government covered up the incident. In 2003, an Independent Commission of Inquiry found that Israel committed "an act of war" against the United States (see Findings of Independent Commission).In addition, the Navy's chief attorney to the original 1967 military Court of Inquiry has issued a statement that orders to cover-up the incident were issued by President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara [see Statement of Captain Ward Boston, USN, JAG (Ret.) (PDF)]. "
FAQ on the USS Liberty
Thursday, June 7, 2007
'Sailing to Gaza'
A group comprised of about 50 internationals is sailing to the Gaza Strip in an attempt to visit the most densely populated area in the world.
A member of the group, Greta Berlin:
"We tried to enter
We must do everything we can to bring to the world's attention to the fact that Israel's military blockade is causing death to the people of Gaza.
'According to international law, the waters of Gaza for all 40 kilometers of its coast belong to the Palestinians, and Israel has no right to control those waters. Even the Oslo agreements state that the coast of Gaza belongs to the people who live there.'
Click Here For More Information
Note:
One of the internationals embarking on the trip is Hedy Epstein, a Holocaust survivor who recently gave a lecture at UCI during the MSU's "Holocaust Memorial Week."
The week was dedicated to the remembrance of the many Holocausts that have occured throughout history. Hedy Epstein enlightened us about the European Holocaust, Imam Abdel Aleem Musa lectured on the African Holocaust, and Professor Ward Churchill ended the week discussing the American Holocaust.
1967 War: An Unfinished Chapter
By Ismail Haniyeh
WHEN the Israeli leaders launched their expansionist war in June 1967 they never envisaged that 40 years later they would still be haunted by the consequences. At the time, they were driven by one strategic objective: to end the conflict by seizing all that remained of Palestine and complete the process of ethnic cleansing that started in 1948.
They did not realise the resolution of this conflict would take much more than military superiority. The occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula was portrayed as the victory of David over Goliath. For the next two decades the Palestinian experience was drowned out by the clamour of Israeli hubris. The world paid little attention to the expropriation of Palestinian land, the apartheid regime established by the occupation and the systematic destruction of Palestinian livelihoods.
It was only in 1987 that the world awoke to the reality of a popular Palestinian uprising –– intifada. A new generation had come of age, thirsty for freedom and peace with dignity in its own land. The two decades since have confirmed that my people will not repeat the mistakes of 1948. They will remain rooted in their land, whatever the price, and pursue their legitimate right to resist the occupation.
That right is supported by, for example, UN Resolutions 2955 and 3034, which affirm the "inalienable" right of all peoples to self-determination and the legitimacy of their struggle against foreign domination and subjugation "by all available means".
Israel's fateful error was to underestimate the resolve of the Palestinians. Tens of thousands have been killed or wounded by the Israeli army since 1967. During 2006, the number of Palestinians killed reached 650. Since the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967, more than 650,000 Palestinians have been detained by Israel –– about 40 per cent of the male population. Today three-quarters of the Palestinian people are displaced: there are five million Palestinian refugees throughout the world.
With the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993, we were told that things would get better. But life became more hellish as Israel accelerated settlement building and seizures of our land. Meanwhile, the world was fed the fallacy that Israel was defending its "threatened existence". In reality, it is Israel, through the prosecution of colonial war, that has threatened the Palestinians' right to live in their land. And when they were most needed, the world's most powerful states refused to ensure respect for the international law that "the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible".
In contempt of the will of the international community, Israel continues to build its annexationist apartheid wall across the West Bank. Which western state\n would, in the 21st century, accept that its citizens be literally caged and locked into cantons? Undaunted by repression, my people have embraced democracy as a means of struggle and governance. Yet in response the world's most powerful democracies have imposed an economic blockade against my people, while Israel continues to kill, expropriate and destroy with impunity. The humanitarian catastrophe in the occupied West Bank and Gaza is clearly designed to subvert the elected government and create a client authority that concedes every wish of the occupier. There can be no exit from the impasse without sanctions being lifted and Israel's release of the hundreds of millions of dollars of our money it has seized.
In the 1967 war, Israel conquered the land of Palestine but it did not conquer the people. And in its attempt to debase and dehumanise my people, Israel has debased and degraded itself before the family of nations. The 1967 war has over 40 years engendered\n successive wars and destabilisation of the Middle East. The increasing mistrust between the Arab-Muslim peoples and the western world is rooted in the conflict in Palestine.
The first step to change this catastrophic climate is for the West to engage with the Palestinian National Unity government, which envisages the establishment of an independent state on all the Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, the dismantling of all the settlements in the West Bank, the release of all 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and the recognition of the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes."
With the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993, we were told that things would get better. But life became more hellish as Israel accelerated settlement building and seizures of our land. Meanwhile, the world was fed the fallacy that Israel was defending its "threatened existence". In reality, it is Israel, through the prosecution of colonial war, that has threatened the Palestinians' right to live in their land. And when they were most needed, the world's most powerful states refused to ensure respect for the international law that "the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible".
In contempt of the will of the international community, Israel continues to build its annexationist apartheid wall across the West Bank. Which western state would, in the 21st century, accept that its citizens be literally caged and locked into cantons? Undaunted by repression, my people have embraced democracy as a means of struggle and governance. Yet in response the world's most powerful democracies have imposed an economic blockade against my people, while Israel continues to kill, expropriate and destroy with impunity. The humanitarian catastrophe in the occupied West Bank and Gaza is clearly designed to subvert the elected government and create a client authority that concedes every wish of the occupier. There can be no exit from the impasse without sanctions being lifted and Israel's release of the hundreds of millions of dollars of our money it has seized.
In the 1967 war, Israel conquered the land of Palestine but it did not conquer the people. And in its attempt to debase and dehumanise my people, Israel has debased and degraded itself before the family of nations. The 1967 war has over 40 years engendered successive wars and destabilisation of the Middle East. The increasing mistrust between the Arab-Muslim peoples and the western world is rooted in the conflict in Palestine.The first step to change this catastrophic climate is for the West to engage with the Palestinian National Unity government, which envisages the establishment of an independent state on all the Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, the dismantling of all the settlements in the West Bank, the release of all 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and the recognition of the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.
If Israel is serious about peace, it has to recognise these basic rights of our people. The 1967 war remains an unfinished chapter. Nothing will stop our struggle for freedom and to have all our children reunited in a fully sovereign state of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. ––The Guardian, London
The writer is the Palestinian prime minister.
WHEN the Israeli leaders launched their expansionist war in June 1967 they never envisaged that 40 years later they would still be haunted by the consequences. At the time, they were driven by one strategic objective: to end the conflict by seizing all that remained of Palestine and complete the process of ethnic cleansing that started in 1948.
They did not realise the resolution of this conflict would take much more than military superiority. The occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula was portrayed as the victory of David over Goliath. For the next two decades the Palestinian experience was drowned out by the clamour of Israeli hubris. The world paid little attention to the expropriation of Palestinian land, the apartheid regime established by the occupation and the systematic destruction of Palestinian livelihoods.
It was only in 1987 that the world awoke to the reality of a popular Palestinian uprising –– intifada. A new generation had come of age, thirsty for freedom and peace with dignity in its own land. The two decades since have confirmed that my people will not repeat the mistakes of 1948. They will remain rooted in their land, whatever the price, and pursue their legitimate right to resist the occupation.
That right is supported by, for example, UN Resolutions 2955 and 3034, which affirm the "inalienable" right of all peoples to self-determination and the legitimacy of their struggle against foreign domination and subjugation "by all available means".
Israel's fateful error was to underestimate the resolve of the Palestinians. Tens of thousands have been killed or wounded by the Israeli army since 1967. During 2006, the number of Palestinians killed reached 650. Since the beginning of the Israeli occupation in 1967, more than 650,000 Palestinians have been detained by Israel –– about 40 per cent of the male population. Today three-quarters of the Palestinian people are displaced: there are five million Palestinian refugees throughout the world.
With the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993, we were told that things would get better. But life became more hellish as Israel accelerated settlement building and seizures of our land. Meanwhile, the world was fed the fallacy that Israel was defending its "threatened existence". In reality, it is Israel, through the prosecution of colonial war, that has threatened the Palestinians' right to live in their land. And when they were most needed, the world's most powerful states refused to ensure respect for the international law that "the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible".
In contempt of the will of the international community, Israel continues to build its annexationist apartheid wall across the West Bank. Which western state\n would, in the 21st century, accept that its citizens be literally caged and locked into cantons? Undaunted by repression, my people have embraced democracy as a means of struggle and governance. Yet in response the world's most powerful democracies have imposed an economic blockade against my people, while Israel continues to kill, expropriate and destroy with impunity. The humanitarian catastrophe in the occupied West Bank and Gaza is clearly designed to subvert the elected government and create a client authority that concedes every wish of the occupier. There can be no exit from the impasse without sanctions being lifted and Israel's release of the hundreds of millions of dollars of our money it has seized.
In the 1967 war, Israel conquered the land of Palestine but it did not conquer the people. And in its attempt to debase and dehumanise my people, Israel has debased and degraded itself before the family of nations. The 1967 war has over 40 years engendered\n successive wars and destabilisation of the Middle East. The increasing mistrust between the Arab-Muslim peoples and the western world is rooted in the conflict in Palestine.
The first step to change this catastrophic climate is for the West to engage with the Palestinian National Unity government, which envisages the establishment of an independent state on all the Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, the dismantling of all the settlements in the West Bank, the release of all 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and the recognition of the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes."
With the signing of the Oslo accords in 1993, we were told that things would get better. But life became more hellish as Israel accelerated settlement building and seizures of our land. Meanwhile, the world was fed the fallacy that Israel was defending its "threatened existence". In reality, it is Israel, through the prosecution of colonial war, that has threatened the Palestinians' right to live in their land. And when they were most needed, the world's most powerful states refused to ensure respect for the international law that "the acquisition of territory by force is inadmissible".
In contempt of the will of the international community, Israel continues to build its annexationist apartheid wall across the West Bank. Which western state would, in the 21st century, accept that its citizens be literally caged and locked into cantons? Undaunted by repression, my people have embraced democracy as a means of struggle and governance. Yet in response the world's most powerful democracies have imposed an economic blockade against my people, while Israel continues to kill, expropriate and destroy with impunity. The humanitarian catastrophe in the occupied West Bank and Gaza is clearly designed to subvert the elected government and create a client authority that concedes every wish of the occupier. There can be no exit from the impasse without sanctions being lifted and Israel's release of the hundreds of millions of dollars of our money it has seized.
In the 1967 war, Israel conquered the land of Palestine but it did not conquer the people. And in its attempt to debase and dehumanise my people, Israel has debased and degraded itself before the family of nations. The 1967 war has over 40 years engendered successive wars and destabilisation of the Middle East. The increasing mistrust between the Arab-Muslim peoples and the western world is rooted in the conflict in Palestine.The first step to change this catastrophic climate is for the West to engage with the Palestinian National Unity government, which envisages the establishment of an independent state on all the Palestinian land occupied by Israel in 1967, the dismantling of all the settlements in the West Bank, the release of all 11,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails and the recognition of the right of all Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.
If Israel is serious about peace, it has to recognise these basic rights of our people. The 1967 war remains an unfinished chapter. Nothing will stop our struggle for freedom and to have all our children reunited in a fully sovereign state of Palestine, with Jerusalem as its capital. ––The Guardian, London
The writer is the Palestinian prime minister.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
UCI College Republicans sponsor "terrorists"
By Mohamad Abdelfattah
After attending a wonderful ceremony celebrating and affirming religious tolerance at UCI, I decided to check out an event being put on by the College Republicans featuring three self-proclaimed former terrorists. I was disturbed to find out that the event was completely dedicated to demonizing the religion of Islam and its followers. It was the furthest thing from the spirit of the ceremony I had attended earlier that morning.
The alleged former terrorists Walid Shoebat, Zak Anani and Kamal Saleem each discussed their supposed radical Islamic lives of the past. The first to speak was Kamal, who described his intense childhood. He claimed, "at 7 years of age, I went on my first mission into Israel…we went through an underground tunnel with 50 kg of TNT on my back." I find it difficult to believe that at seven years of age this guy held 110 pounds of explosives on his back, when my own seven year-old brother has difficulty carrying his backpack to school everyday. Kamal's story seemed to be staged as part of a play – he kept referring to his notes and would raise his voice at certain times to dramatize his act.
Next up was Zak Anani who who told us that he grew up in Lebanon and at age thirteen joined a radical Islamic movement. Interestingly, his biography on Shoebat’s website indicates his level of “religiosity”: he refused to pray and actually killed a fellow Muslim for asking him to pray the early morning prayer! Yet, he claimed that his religion inspired him to kill hundreds – by the age of eighteen, he was allegedly personally responsible for the deaths of 223 people. By the way, he does not provide the context. Apparently his activities occurred during the civil war when most factions, Muslim and non-Muslim, were all busy killing each other; yet, somehow his actions committed as a Muslim stand out and indict the entire religion.
His hatred of Islam is intense. He said, "There isn't really radical Islam, they're either Muslim or non-Muslims.” In other words, our fight terrorism is in reality a war against all Muslims. The neo-con mantra “You’re either with us or you’re against us” has been translated into “You’re either Muslim or you’re non-Muslim.” Talk about religious intolerance.
The final person to speak was Walid Shoebat, a self-professed ex-PLO fighter. Walid claims to be Palestinian. He also makes the claim that he used to be a terrorist with the PLO, but provides absolutely no documentation or proof that would support his claims.
I will spare the readers the details of the terrorists’ stories and why I think they are mostly lies and fabrications. The more important issue is the point behind “touring” those three self-proclaimed terrorists around US college campuses. Even if the stories told by the speakers are true, it is obvious that such events are staged by intolerant right-wing groups to promote Islamophobic sentiments and justify the discrimination against Muslims in America and abroad.
Members of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) are always accused of being hypocritical in that they organize events attacking Zionism and Zionists yet criticize events against Islam or Muslims. To rational human beings, the difference should be obvious.
Unlike Islam, Zionism is not a religion but a man-made political ideology (just like socialism or capitalism). An attack on Zionism is an attack on its racist ideas and the oppressive practices of its subscribers, not an attack on a specific religion or its followers.
On the other hand, events such as the one recently sponsored by the College Republicans that equate Islam, one of the three Abrahamic religions, to terrorism promote religious intolerance, to say the least. Had the College Republican event targeted political parties or groups (PLO, Hamas, Hizbullah for example) the situation would have been different and I may have considered some of the arguments presented. However, their speakers chose to misrepresent the whole religion of Islam and its 1.5 billion followers worldwide. That is straight up Islamophobia.
As an Muslim American I have had the opportunity to meet and get to know Muslims from all over the world, but I have yet to meet a "radical Muslim". Yes, we have all seen them on CNN and FOX News, but I am yet to see one in person. I am yet to meet a Muslim who declares "jihad" on innocent civilians or vows to kill every “infidel”. I am yet to see the avocation of killing Americans along with the "death to America" cry that our media portrays of every other Middle Eastern man with a beard or woman with a scarf.
I went to the College Republican event hoping to get a glimpse of what I have so often heard and read about. I must say I was disappointed. The speakers at Monday night’s event are well-overpaid. I could easily find ten people with Middle-Eastern accents to put on a more convincing act. And if their stories are indeed true, why aren’t these people rotting in Guantanamo?
After attending a wonderful ceremony celebrating and affirming religious tolerance at UCI, I decided to check out an event being put on by the College Republicans featuring three self-proclaimed former terrorists. I was disturbed to find out that the event was completely dedicated to demonizing the religion of Islam and its followers. It was the furthest thing from the spirit of the ceremony I had attended earlier that morning.
The alleged former terrorists Walid Shoebat, Zak Anani and Kamal Saleem each discussed their supposed radical Islamic lives of the past. The first to speak was Kamal, who described his intense childhood. He claimed, "at 7 years of age, I went on my first mission into Israel…we went through an underground tunnel with 50 kg of TNT on my back." I find it difficult to believe that at seven years of age this guy held 110 pounds of explosives on his back, when my own seven year-old brother has difficulty carrying his backpack to school everyday. Kamal's story seemed to be staged as part of a play – he kept referring to his notes and would raise his voice at certain times to dramatize his act.
Next up was Zak Anani who who told us that he grew up in Lebanon and at age thirteen joined a radical Islamic movement. Interestingly, his biography on Shoebat’s website indicates his level of “religiosity”: he refused to pray and actually killed a fellow Muslim for asking him to pray the early morning prayer! Yet, he claimed that his religion inspired him to kill hundreds – by the age of eighteen, he was allegedly personally responsible for the deaths of 223 people. By the way, he does not provide the context. Apparently his activities occurred during the civil war when most factions, Muslim and non-Muslim, were all busy killing each other; yet, somehow his actions committed as a Muslim stand out and indict the entire religion.
His hatred of Islam is intense. He said, "There isn't really radical Islam, they're either Muslim or non-Muslims.” In other words, our fight terrorism is in reality a war against all Muslims. The neo-con mantra “You’re either with us or you’re against us” has been translated into “You’re either Muslim or you’re non-Muslim.” Talk about religious intolerance.
The final person to speak was Walid Shoebat, a self-professed ex-PLO fighter. Walid claims to be Palestinian. He also makes the claim that he used to be a terrorist with the PLO, but provides absolutely no documentation or proof that would support his claims.
I will spare the readers the details of the terrorists’ stories and why I think they are mostly lies and fabrications. The more important issue is the point behind “touring” those three self-proclaimed terrorists around US college campuses. Even if the stories told by the speakers are true, it is obvious that such events are staged by intolerant right-wing groups to promote Islamophobic sentiments and justify the discrimination against Muslims in America and abroad.
Members of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) are always accused of being hypocritical in that they organize events attacking Zionism and Zionists yet criticize events against Islam or Muslims. To rational human beings, the difference should be obvious.
Unlike Islam, Zionism is not a religion but a man-made political ideology (just like socialism or capitalism). An attack on Zionism is an attack on its racist ideas and the oppressive practices of its subscribers, not an attack on a specific religion or its followers.
On the other hand, events such as the one recently sponsored by the College Republicans that equate Islam, one of the three Abrahamic religions, to terrorism promote religious intolerance, to say the least. Had the College Republican event targeted political parties or groups (PLO, Hamas, Hizbullah for example) the situation would have been different and I may have considered some of the arguments presented. However, their speakers chose to misrepresent the whole religion of Islam and its 1.5 billion followers worldwide. That is straight up Islamophobia.
As an Muslim American I have had the opportunity to meet and get to know Muslims from all over the world, but I have yet to meet a "radical Muslim". Yes, we have all seen them on CNN and FOX News, but I am yet to see one in person. I am yet to meet a Muslim who declares "jihad" on innocent civilians or vows to kill every “infidel”. I am yet to see the avocation of killing Americans along with the "death to America" cry that our media portrays of every other Middle Eastern man with a beard or woman with a scarf.
I went to the College Republican event hoping to get a glimpse of what I have so often heard and read about. I must say I was disappointed. The speakers at Monday night’s event are well-overpaid. I could easily find ten people with Middle-Eastern accents to put on a more convincing act. And if their stories are indeed true, why aren’t these people rotting in Guantanamo?
Murder of Yahya al-Jabari
The "Israeli" Occupation Forces committed another crime today, this time in Hebron.
They invaded the home of Yahya al-Jabari, a 67-year-old Palestinian man and murdered him right as they entered the house. His 65-year-old wife confronted them and began to scream at the soldiers, they went on to shoot her and seriously wound her as well.
They IOF continued and shot the rest of the family, including women and children.
"Hospital officials said in all seven members of the family of the dead man, Yahya al-Jabari, were wounded."
Below is some footage at the scene of the murder.
They invaded the home of Yahya al-Jabari, a 67-year-old Palestinian man and murdered him right as they entered the house. His 65-year-old wife confronted them and began to scream at the soldiers, they went on to shoot her and seriously wound her as well.
They IOF continued and shot the rest of the family, including women and children.
"Hospital officials said in all seven members of the family of the dead man, Yahya al-Jabari, were wounded."
Below is some footage at the scene of the murder.
Monday, June 4, 2007
'Apartheid Resurrected' Speaks Truth to Power
For the past two weeks the New University has printed a number of articles criticizing the Muslim Student Union's "Israel: Apartheid Resurrected" week, calling it anti-Semitic, extremist, and uninformative. However, unfortunate as it may be to those who made the previously mentioned claims, the week did not embody any of those characteristics.
Alex Chazen was right when he said that someone would come forth correcting the statement that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Judaism. Zionism, as it is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "an organized movement of world Jewry that arose in Europe in the late 19th century with the aim of reconstituting a Jewish state in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the development and support of the state of Israel." Zionism, by being a movement which supports the development of a nation, is thusly not in any way the same as Judaism. Judaism is a way of life derived through the scriptures given to humanity by God. Simply because a significant group of Jews support the political idea of Zionism does not make it the same as the religion of Judaism itself. To learn about a religion, look to its scriptures, not to its followers.
The "Israel: Apartheid Resurrected" week was thus aimed not to coerce a desire to "kill a few Jews" but to expose the state of Israel for what it truly is: a land that practices apartheid, not peace. The evidence is irrefutable. If simply "showing off the beautiful culture of the [Palestinian] people" were enough to put an end to the typical student's apathy, I am sure a different approach to the week could have been taken. However, the fact of the matter remains that Israeli forces are causing destruction to Palestinians every day, and people are still in denial of the fact that Israeli forces are occupying the land of the Palestinians and murdering them without reason.
Sadly people like Alex Chazen need more information than this in order for the Palestinians to "earn them [his] respect or concern." I guess the fact children are being brutally oppressed, that Palestinian houses are being razed and destroyed to make more room for Israeli settlers, that the apartheid wall forces some people to carry up to three permits every day simply to get to work, is not enough reason to have respect for human beings. Perhaps he agrees with Rabbi Yaacov Perrin that "one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail," or maybe he agrees with former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Maier when he said, "There was no such thing as a Palestinian people…It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." This would, of course, make perfect sense as the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of land in the world today.
Reut Cohen claims that MSU members to whom she has spoken "don't support a two-state solution," and implies that this means they "want Israelis out [of Palestine]." However, supporting a one-state solution is not the same as "wanting Israelis out." The land of Palestine should be returned to its rightful owners, and a democratic state should be established in which all those residing on the lands of Palestine can live in freedom, equality, and peace. If Israel were truly a democracy, perhaps these goals would have been achieved.
Cohen goes on to claim that MSU members have "harassed and intimidated" those who are Jewish or pro-Israel, where this is not the case in the slightest. Many of these "incidents documented on [their] cameras" are not harassment nor were they committed by MSU members. Perhaps they were more random idiots like the "young male wearing a head scarf covering his face and holding a sign reading: 'Death to Israel--Death to America.'" Although this student was not a member of the MSU, teacher Gary Fouse and his colleague unfortunately bought into that poor man's ruse to discredit the Muslim Student Union, just as Cohen tries to do by falsely accusing MSU members of intimidation.
While certain people like Chris Kilpatrick believe that "MSU harbors extremists that support ideas similar to those who seek the destruction of humanity," the truth is quite the opposite. If speaking out against the oppression of massive amounts of people is not a humanitarian cause, I'll be honest and tell you that I don't know what is. "Israel: Apartheid Resurrected" week was dedicated to further the voices of the oppressed Palestinian peoples. When one disregards the horrific circumstances of millions of people in order to further their own political gain, I would consider that to be pretty extremist and destructive to humanity. To do that would be up to par with ignoring the Jewish Holocaust. So what is the FBI really investigating here? The MSU does not harbor extremism nor does it support anti-Jewish sentiments. It seems that these calls for investigations are only in efforts to suppress one thing: the truth.
Zoya Ahmad
Alex Chazen was right when he said that someone would come forth correcting the statement that equates anti-Zionism with anti-Judaism. Zionism, as it is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, is "an organized movement of world Jewry that arose in Europe in the late 19th century with the aim of reconstituting a Jewish state in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the development and support of the state of Israel." Zionism, by being a movement which supports the development of a nation, is thusly not in any way the same as Judaism. Judaism is a way of life derived through the scriptures given to humanity by God. Simply because a significant group of Jews support the political idea of Zionism does not make it the same as the religion of Judaism itself. To learn about a religion, look to its scriptures, not to its followers.
The "Israel: Apartheid Resurrected" week was thus aimed not to coerce a desire to "kill a few Jews" but to expose the state of Israel for what it truly is: a land that practices apartheid, not peace. The evidence is irrefutable. If simply "showing off the beautiful culture of the [Palestinian] people" were enough to put an end to the typical student's apathy, I am sure a different approach to the week could have been taken. However, the fact of the matter remains that Israeli forces are causing destruction to Palestinians every day, and people are still in denial of the fact that Israeli forces are occupying the land of the Palestinians and murdering them without reason.
Sadly people like Alex Chazen need more information than this in order for the Palestinians to "earn them [his] respect or concern." I guess the fact children are being brutally oppressed, that Palestinian houses are being razed and destroyed to make more room for Israeli settlers, that the apartheid wall forces some people to carry up to three permits every day simply to get to work, is not enough reason to have respect for human beings. Perhaps he agrees with Rabbi Yaacov Perrin that "one million Arabs are not worth a Jewish fingernail," or maybe he agrees with former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Maier when he said, "There was no such thing as a Palestinian people…It is not as if we came and threw them out and took their country. They didn't exist." This would, of course, make perfect sense as the Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated pieces of land in the world today.
Reut Cohen claims that MSU members to whom she has spoken "don't support a two-state solution," and implies that this means they "want Israelis out [of Palestine]." However, supporting a one-state solution is not the same as "wanting Israelis out." The land of Palestine should be returned to its rightful owners, and a democratic state should be established in which all those residing on the lands of Palestine can live in freedom, equality, and peace. If Israel were truly a democracy, perhaps these goals would have been achieved.
Cohen goes on to claim that MSU members have "harassed and intimidated" those who are Jewish or pro-Israel, where this is not the case in the slightest. Many of these "incidents documented on [their] cameras" are not harassment nor were they committed by MSU members. Perhaps they were more random idiots like the "young male wearing a head scarf covering his face and holding a sign reading: 'Death to Israel--Death to America.'" Although this student was not a member of the MSU, teacher Gary Fouse and his colleague unfortunately bought into that poor man's ruse to discredit the Muslim Student Union, just as Cohen tries to do by falsely accusing MSU members of intimidation.
While certain people like Chris Kilpatrick believe that "MSU harbors extremists that support ideas similar to those who seek the destruction of humanity," the truth is quite the opposite. If speaking out against the oppression of massive amounts of people is not a humanitarian cause, I'll be honest and tell you that I don't know what is. "Israel: Apartheid Resurrected" week was dedicated to further the voices of the oppressed Palestinian peoples. When one disregards the horrific circumstances of millions of people in order to further their own political gain, I would consider that to be pretty extremist and destructive to humanity. To do that would be up to par with ignoring the Jewish Holocaust. So what is the FBI really investigating here? The MSU does not harbor extremism nor does it support anti-Jewish sentiments. It seems that these calls for investigations are only in efforts to suppress one thing: the truth.
Zoya Ahmad
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Media Campaign Against MSU
Recently, in the media you have seen many Zionists speaking about UCI and their views on the events the MSU has organized this past spring.
You had a clown for a rabbi appear on a local radio station and address his "concerns" about UCI. He claims our week was designed at "creating an atmosphere of hate on campus" and that "MSU's only goal is to intimidate Jewish students."
Complete lies and fabrications.
The MSU's goal of the "Israel: Apartheid Resurrected" week was to inform and educate the campus about the oppression of millions of people in Palestine at the hands of Israel with the full backing of our government.
If our true goal was to intimidate Jewish students on campus, why not then dedicate our entire campus events towards this goal? We put on events all year long, addressing many different issues.
Have we ever organized events in which we demonized Judaism or the Jewish people? NO, quite the contrary, we even brought a rabbi to speak about the differences between Judaism and Zionism.
In our programs, you will hear us criticizing Zionism, not Judaism. Zionism is not a religion but a man-made political ideology (just like socialism or capitalism). An attack on Zionism is an attack on its racist ideas and the oppressive practices of its subscribers, not an attack on a specific religion or its followers.
You also had an AFI member who appeared on FOX News with Walid Shoebat, a self-proclaimed ex-terrorist. Walid claims that he used to be a terrorist with the PLO, but provides absolutely no documentation or proof that would support his claims.
He says, "MSU is a group that openly gives funds for terrorism, openly calls for the toppling of the United States of America, and openly raises funds for terrorism."
His claims have absolutely no basis. There is absolutely no evidence to back these claims because they are complete LIES, which is not surprising coming from Walid Shoebat, who makes a living off lies and deceiving the masses.
This same AFI member documents almost all of the MSU events, so please provide some evidence to support these absolute ridiculous claims.
If the media was really interested in why the MSU does what it does, why not ask the MSU to explain for themselves? Why bring some off campus rabbi or MSU-hater to answer these questions?
It is clear that there is a certain agenda that the media is trying to push along.
You had a clown for a rabbi appear on a local radio station and address his "concerns" about UCI. He claims our week was designed at "creating an atmosphere of hate on campus" and that "MSU's only goal is to intimidate Jewish students."
Complete lies and fabrications.
The MSU's goal of the "Israel: Apartheid Resurrected" week was to inform and educate the campus about the oppression of millions of people in Palestine at the hands of Israel with the full backing of our government.
If our true goal was to intimidate Jewish students on campus, why not then dedicate our entire campus events towards this goal? We put on events all year long, addressing many different issues.
Have we ever organized events in which we demonized Judaism or the Jewish people? NO, quite the contrary, we even brought a rabbi to speak about the differences between Judaism and Zionism.
In our programs, you will hear us criticizing Zionism, not Judaism. Zionism is not a religion but a man-made political ideology (just like socialism or capitalism). An attack on Zionism is an attack on its racist ideas and the oppressive practices of its subscribers, not an attack on a specific religion or its followers.
You also had an AFI member who appeared on FOX News with Walid Shoebat, a self-proclaimed ex-terrorist. Walid claims that he used to be a terrorist with the PLO, but provides absolutely no documentation or proof that would support his claims.
He says, "MSU is a group that openly gives funds for terrorism, openly calls for the toppling of the United States of America, and openly raises funds for terrorism."
His claims have absolutely no basis. There is absolutely no evidence to back these claims because they are complete LIES, which is not surprising coming from Walid Shoebat, who makes a living off lies and deceiving the masses.
This same AFI member documents almost all of the MSU events, so please provide some evidence to support these absolute ridiculous claims.
If the media was really interested in why the MSU does what it does, why not ask the MSU to explain for themselves? Why bring some off campus rabbi or MSU-hater to answer these questions?
It is clear that there is a certain agenda that the media is trying to push along.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
AFI Supports Terrorists
It was very amusing to watch Anteaters for Israel's Co-President, Emilya Shaaya, publicly declare her club's support to the work of the 3xTerrorists, during the Q&A session of last night's program.
Walid Shoebat and his goons are Evangelical Christians, who believe that the state of
Moshe Katz says the following about Shoebat:
"He claims to be Palestinian but nobody in the territories has ever heard of him. He says he was a former PLO fighter but strangely enough he doesn't have any documentation or proof to back up his claims.
Have you ever heard the phrase ‘never trust a man who sells out his own people’. That sums up Shoebat. He is too right wing in his rhetoric. He claims to be a former Moslem who now embraces Christianity and loves
I guess they just take whatever support they can get.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
New University- ‘UC Intifada’: Anti-Zionism Is Not Racism
‘UC Intifada’: Anti-Zionism Is Not Racism
Commentary
By Alaa Alomar
Alex Chazen, president of Hillel:The Jewish Student Union, was clever to assume in his article “MSU Hypocritical, Not Educational,” featured in last week’s New University, that someone would write a counter-article to respond to his false claims as well as those of many others. So if you are courageous enough to hear the point of view of a “racist” group that does more than give out free cupcakes to promote its causes, then keep reading this article.
The bigger and better Muslim Student Union’s anti-Zionist weeks become, the more Hillel and Anteaters for Israel try to convince everyone that MSU is anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish. To begin with, the accusation that MSU is a racist group is illegitimate. Racism is defined as the belief that due to differences in human character a particular race is superior to others, and Zionism (a movement that arose in the late 19th century which sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine) is not a race. The speakers Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Rabbi Dovid Weiss, Lenni Brenner and Imam Mohammad Al-Asi all came to speak against Zionism, which as I have stated above is a movement and not a race, and this makes none of them racist.
The scaled representation of the apartheid wall featured facts and statistics – almost all of which came from the United Nations – about the oppression of the Palestinian people and the devastation that they live with, which again is not racist.
Having said this, let me continue by discussing an analogy used by Chazen, in his article which equates Christians with Jews and an imaginary “Christianland” to Israel. Chazen says, “Let’s say … my club puts on a week of events that I claim aren’t anti-Christian, but demonize the population and government of Christianland, saying that they don’t have the right to exist as a nation and they must be destroyed by any means necessary. … I doubt that many of you would say that I wasn’t being anti-Christian.”
The problem here is that MSU does not claim that Israel does not have the right to exist as a nation; MSU only claims that Israel does not have the right to steal the Palestinian people’s land to create a nation of their own, massacre the existing Palestinian population and then claim that “it was a land without people.” If it was “a land without people,” then who were the Israelis fighting against during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 over this piece of land that created about 726,000 Palestinian refugees? Themselves? I don’t think so.
Of course, many other false accusations were made about the MSU’s anti-Zionist week. One such accusation made by Reut Cohen in her article “UC Intifada Circus Demonizes Israel” (New Univeristy, May 28, 2007) featured in last week’s paper was that the wall featured propaganda and false information. Cohen claims that the story of Muhammad Al-Durra, a 12-year-old boy who was shot by the Israel Defense Forces and died in his father’s arms, adding fuel to the events of the Second Intifada, never happened and was staged. The Israeli army destroyed most of the physical evidence at the site soon after the incident, including the wall that contained bullet holes indicating that the boy and his father had been fired upon. Why would the Israeli army find any need to do this if the evidence proved their innocence? Furthermore, Talal Abu Rachmeh, the cameraman for France 2 Television who got the incident on tape, said that the boy and his father were shot at during a sustained half-hour bombardment from the Israeli side, which means that the bullets were not from the Palestinians. I would appreciate it, as I’m sure many others would, if claims like Cohen’s could be supported with real evidence.
Cohen also mentions that speaker Amir Abdel Malik Ali said, “And we will not stop until we are either victorious or until we are martyred,” which she found sickening. Let me begin with some definitions. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, victorious is defined as “being the winner in a contest or struggle” and a martyr is “one who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause or principle.” I don’t see what is sickening about wanting to win a war – people do not fight to lose – nor do I see what is so horrible about fighting and struggling for a cause you believe in. There is a war going on between the Palestinians and Israelis. It is reasonable to assume that there are killings on both sides. However, it is not reasonable to ask the Palestinians to sit in their homes and do nothing while F-16s from the Israeli side drop bombs on Palestinian cities like rain.
Lastly, Chazen states in his article that Hillel promoted Israel by giving out free food and T-shirts while MSU brought racist speakers. Of course, if you look at it from another perspective, one could say that while MSU dedicated an entire week to informing students about the oppression of the Palestinian people, a supporter of Hillel and AFI brought a clown to pass out balloons during the middle of the lecture, disturbing the audience.
Alaa Alomar is a first-year psychology major.
Commentary
By Alaa Alomar
Alex Chazen, president of Hillel:The Jewish Student Union, was clever to assume in his article “MSU Hypocritical, Not Educational,” featured in last week’s New University, that someone would write a counter-article to respond to his false claims as well as those of many others. So if you are courageous enough to hear the point of view of a “racist” group that does more than give out free cupcakes to promote its causes, then keep reading this article.
The bigger and better Muslim Student Union’s anti-Zionist weeks become, the more Hillel and Anteaters for Israel try to convince everyone that MSU is anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish. To begin with, the accusation that MSU is a racist group is illegitimate. Racism is defined as the belief that due to differences in human character a particular race is superior to others, and Zionism (a movement that arose in the late 19th century which sought to reestablish a Jewish homeland in Palestine) is not a race. The speakers Amir Abdel Malik Ali, Rabbi Dovid Weiss, Lenni Brenner and Imam Mohammad Al-Asi all came to speak against Zionism, which as I have stated above is a movement and not a race, and this makes none of them racist.
The scaled representation of the apartheid wall featured facts and statistics – almost all of which came from the United Nations – about the oppression of the Palestinian people and the devastation that they live with, which again is not racist.
Having said this, let me continue by discussing an analogy used by Chazen, in his article which equates Christians with Jews and an imaginary “Christianland” to Israel. Chazen says, “Let’s say … my club puts on a week of events that I claim aren’t anti-Christian, but demonize the population and government of Christianland, saying that they don’t have the right to exist as a nation and they must be destroyed by any means necessary. … I doubt that many of you would say that I wasn’t being anti-Christian.”
The problem here is that MSU does not claim that Israel does not have the right to exist as a nation; MSU only claims that Israel does not have the right to steal the Palestinian people’s land to create a nation of their own, massacre the existing Palestinian population and then claim that “it was a land without people.” If it was “a land without people,” then who were the Israelis fighting against during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 over this piece of land that created about 726,000 Palestinian refugees? Themselves? I don’t think so.
Of course, many other false accusations were made about the MSU’s anti-Zionist week. One such accusation made by Reut Cohen in her article “UC Intifada Circus Demonizes Israel” (New Univeristy, May 28, 2007) featured in last week’s paper was that the wall featured propaganda and false information. Cohen claims that the story of Muhammad Al-Durra, a 12-year-old boy who was shot by the Israel Defense Forces and died in his father’s arms, adding fuel to the events of the Second Intifada, never happened and was staged. The Israeli army destroyed most of the physical evidence at the site soon after the incident, including the wall that contained bullet holes indicating that the boy and his father had been fired upon. Why would the Israeli army find any need to do this if the evidence proved their innocence? Furthermore, Talal Abu Rachmeh, the cameraman for France 2 Television who got the incident on tape, said that the boy and his father were shot at during a sustained half-hour bombardment from the Israeli side, which means that the bullets were not from the Palestinians. I would appreciate it, as I’m sure many others would, if claims like Cohen’s could be supported with real evidence.
Cohen also mentions that speaker Amir Abdel Malik Ali said, “And we will not stop until we are either victorious or until we are martyred,” which she found sickening. Let me begin with some definitions. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, victorious is defined as “being the winner in a contest or struggle” and a martyr is “one who makes great sacrifices or suffers much in order to further a belief, cause or principle.” I don’t see what is sickening about wanting to win a war – people do not fight to lose – nor do I see what is so horrible about fighting and struggling for a cause you believe in. There is a war going on between the Palestinians and Israelis. It is reasonable to assume that there are killings on both sides. However, it is not reasonable to ask the Palestinians to sit in their homes and do nothing while F-16s from the Israeli side drop bombs on Palestinian cities like rain.
Lastly, Chazen states in his article that Hillel promoted Israel by giving out free food and T-shirts while MSU brought racist speakers. Of course, if you look at it from another perspective, one could say that while MSU dedicated an entire week to informing students about the oppression of the Palestinian people, a supporter of Hillel and AFI brought a clown to pass out balloons during the middle of the lecture, disturbing the audience.
Alaa Alomar is a first-year psychology major.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
