Doc's Talk: Finally: Pushing Back Against the MSU at UC Irvine

Monday, June 07, 2010

Finally: Pushing Back Against the MSU at UC Irvine

Pajamasmedia
June 6, 2010
- by Aaron Elias

For years, anti-Israel student organizations like the Muslim Student Union and Students for Justice in Palestine have held an annual “Israel Apartheid Week” on college campuses across the nation. The events draw widespread criticism for their frequent use of hateful rhetoric, incitement to violence, thinly-veiled anti-Semitic speeches, and flagrant distortion of facts and history. For years, this circus sideshow of half-truths and hatred has gone unhindered, with no political pro-Israel or even moderate week to rival it.

That changed last month at the campus of UC Irvine.

From May 19 to 21, a new club on UCI’s campus by the name of Movement for Peace in the Middle East (MPME) lined the main campus road with several displays depicting facts about the Jewish refugees in the Arab world as well as Islamic terrorism targeting Israel and Jews, Nazism in the Arab world, and the connection between the campus Muslim Student Union (MSU) and terror groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. nother display explored ways to achieve peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The event followed the MSU’s annual “Israel Apartheid Week” the week before. While the MSU’s week is full of half-truths, opinionated speakers, and often violently hateful rhetoric directed at the state of Israel and “Zionist Jews,” MPME’s displays dealt solely in well-documented, historical facts.

I was on campus at the time of the event. The displays towered over 10 feet and drew a lot of attention from passersby. A booth on the road handed out shirts for the event that read “I AM PRO” on the front and “PRO-ISRAEL, PRO-PALESTINIAN, PRO-PEACE” on the back. Each day, members of the MSU could be seen gathered at one of the displays arguing with pro-Israel students. Offended MSU members consistently made claims like “It’s Islamophobic!” and “You’re only telling one side of the story!”

Oh, irony is bitter.

I had a chance to sit down with the founder of MPME, Isaac Yerushalmi, to talk about the unofficially christened “MPME Week.” Yerushalmi was president of UCI’s Anteaters for Israel for two years in a row and currently serves as the president of MPME. He has achieved near-superstar status in the Zionist and Jewish communities around Irvine (and beyond) for his ingenuity, passion, and strategic mind concerning Israel. Yerushalmi comes off as one of the most moderate and level-headed Zionists you will ever meet.

AE: What is the goal of MPME?

IY: The goal of MPME is to educate students on many of the issues that are left out of the conversation on campus, to raise awareness about Israel’s struggles, i.e., terrorism, prevalence of anti-Semitism in the Arab world, and so on. We also touch on how Jews have historical struggles in the Arab world, like ethnic cleansing. We educate on prospects for peace, most specifically a two-state solution. We believe peace is possible and practical; it should be in the best interests of Israel, the Palestinians, and the U.S.

AE: What are some of the responses you’ve received about MPME Week?

IY: The majority of students appreciated hearing a different perspective on these issues. They found it refreshing on a campus where you predominantly hear an anti-Israel voice; not pro-Palestinian, but anti-Israel. A lot of people came up and expressed support for the event, even Muslims.

AE: There was a lot of secrecy about MPME Week in the weeks leading up to its advent on campus. What was the reasoning behind this?

IY: We wanted to maintain an element of surprise, strategically speaking. There are students on campus who have tried to sabotage and disrupt [these kinds of] events.

We had a team of maybe 6 people [to work on MPME Week], but throughout the week we got help from 15 people. It was a relatively small group and passive event. We weren’t going out and rallying up people. It was like, here are some facts. Let people soak it in. There are certain student groups that try to make one side seem evil, inherently evil. Our purpose is to show why Israel is doing what it’s doing.

We spent only 3 weeks [preparing] the event [because we were just] testing the waters this year. In the future we will make it bigger, maybe bring academics, activists, different types of people to come speak. This was just a small test.

AE: Is there anything else you’d like to say?

IY: Everything we presented was factual. We stand by all those facts. We believe they are relevant and important for people to know. We did have a panel that was talking about Nazi influence in the Arab world, particularly discussing Nazis that took asylum in Arab countries and their influences in the context of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. Our purpose was to show that influence. In regards to referencing MSU, that too was entirely factual. We covered it up because we found many students were offended by it; we didn’t want people to close their ears to everything else presented just because of that one thing. We chose to cover it up because we don’t want to polarize. We want to educate, not divide. But we stand by it; it was factual. For doubters, we presented sources by request.

Ultimately our message is one of peace. We believe in the Palestinian right to self-determination, as well as the Jews’ right. We want to see a prosperous Palestinian state, but it’s important to realize that can’t come at the expense of Israel’s security. We support the [Obama] administration trying to mediate, to help the two sides come to a comprehensive agreement that will bring Israel safe and secure and internationally recognized borders and help the Palestinians create the state they desire. Our message is pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, pro-peace. There was a clear contrast between this and the MSU’s week … [which] tried to slander the Jewish state and made accusations that were false. It was condemned by campus faculty and the UC president. Regardless of what they say and how they distort facts, they never presented a solution that solves both the legitimate concerns of Israelis and Pals. On the contrary, MPME presents a solution to the Palestinian desire for self-determination, sovereignty, and increased freedoms, as well as Israel’s concerns for security and legitimacy in the international community.

With the introduction of MPME Week comes a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian tensions on UC Irvine’s campus. No longer will the infamous “Israeli Apartheid Week” be a presence on UCI’s campus without facing an equal if less hateful response. Anteaters for Israel, the campus’s pro-Israel club, holds an annual Israeli culture festival named iFest that is warmly received by the UCI community (iFest is also Yerushalmi’s brainchild), but does not concern itself with politics so as to maintain a positive and more attractive atmosphere.

Because of this, Jewish students have been clamoring for a direct political response to the ever-hateful “Israeli Apartheid Week” for years. MPME Week is that response, and considering Yerushalmi’s track record for planning and developing campus events and clubs, it is only going to get bigger.

Aaron Elias is a student at University of California Irvine. He writes for the campus' New University newspaper and blogs at The Wayward Infidel.

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk