What about the rights of the listeners to enjoy the free speech of an ambassador of a foreign country? Do I have the right to constantly interrupt a speech given by a person with whom i disagree with? I don’t think Obama would ever be given a chance to speak if that was the case. Everyone would just come and bring megaphones and start speaking gibberish. What a joke this article is.

Flag this comment

What about the rights of the listeners to enjoy the free speech of an ambassador of a foreign country? Do I have the right to constantly interrupt a speech given by a person with whom i disagree with? I don’t think Obama would ever be given a chance to speak if that was the case. Everyone would just come and bring megaphones and start speaking gibberish. What a joke this article is.

Flag this comment

I agree with Gil. Highly biased article

Flag this comment

You are CLUELESS. This is pure junk and should not be taken seriously.
What gives you the right to judge a state being constantly terrorized and hated upon for simply defending its security.
I wonder what if a rocket would have dropped on your home or maybe a relative of yours would have been shredded to pieces by a suicide bomber while taking the bus to work, would your views stay this way? or would you have woken up and smelled the coffee of terrorism. STOP BEING HYPOCRITES. NON OF YOU UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF LIVING UNDER CONSTANT LIFE THREAT.

Flag this comment

The writer seems to pick at the few facts in the conflict that favor his brainwash-driven agenda .
He starts the timeline with 2009? “Why?” you may ask, well, it is not favorable to start 4 years prior to that since it would include thousands of rockets launched from Gaza towards Israeli cities harming innocent civilians, not soldiers in uniform.
Closing down the MSU for 1 year on campus is not punishment. At UCLA it takes 3 friends to apply for a student group. What has stopped that chapter of MSU from starting a new group or operating under a different a group name (which they did)? Thus, this is clearly not enough for violating an individuals first amendment rights.
I believe in free speech and the university should be promoting it as much as possible. The students were encouraged to ask question, and debate in a civil manner once the lecture was over. That would have been free speech, not throwing a tantrum.

To add to the hypocrisy, a true advocate of “human rights” would know that Women don’t get to vote, Gays receive the death penalty, and so on in the Palestinian Authority.

I would like evidence of any “disrupted speeches” on our university. I don’t recall a pro-Israel or pro-America voice disrupting any of the Palestinian-friendly speakers, including Malik Ali who is known for his anti-semitism on college campuses.

Let’s talk some facts. The West Bank is not “occupied”. Under international law it is “disputed territory”. The US does not fund “countless war crimes”.

Lastly, I horribly regret the fact that the Afrikan Student Union, Vietnamese Student Union. MEChA, Pacific Islander Coalition, and Samahang Pilipino stand with the writer. It is a known fact on campus that their knowledge of the conflict goes as far as reading a poster or attending an event and they are standing in support purely for political reasons.

Flag this comment

I would just like to correct some of the many inaccuracies in this highly biased and pathetic article:

1. “Following the Israeli military offensive on the Gaza Strip in the beginning of 2009…”
The operation being referred to was Operation Cast Lead, which actually began in late 2008. Also, I would argue with calling it “offensive” considering that more than 8,000 rockets had been launched into Israel from the Gaza Strip prior to this operation. I think “defensive” is probably a better way to describe this operation.

2. “Despite immediate discipline imposed against the students by the university, in which an entire student group’s activities were suspended for a full year…”
The Muslim Student Union at UC Irvine was initially suspended for a full year, but after an appeal by the group the suspension was reduced to a quarter of the year, meaning the group’s activities were halted for a mere 3 months.

3. “Over 1400 Palestinians were killed – many of them children.”
This is a commonly used accusation against Israel. The author makes it seem as though Israel indiscrimanately killed 1400 innocent Palestinians. However, Hamas themselves have come out and said that over half of the 1400 casualities were Hamas militants, or as I like to call them “terrorists.” You can read about it here: http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=193521
You can also watch a video testimony of someone who investigated the operation here: http://www.youtube.com/user/HumanRightsUN?ob=5#p/u/2/NX6vyT8RzMo

4. “Countless events and speakers at this university, with content sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians at the hand of Israel, have been subject to disruptions and derision with no consequences imposed against violators by the university or otherwise.”
Please provide examples of this, because I do not know of any and considering that they are “countless” I’m sure you can provide us with at least a few.

Before you write an article in support of students who broke the law, you might want to do some research.

Flag this comment

Thanks for a great article! Students’ freedom of speech should never be stripped away, especially when rightfully standing up against a war criminal and an oppressive state.

Flag this comment

the entrenchment of the Israeli—racism propagating—eret’z Israel “disputed territories“narrative pushing—confusers of God and Remax camp at UCLA boggles the mind.. here we have students, the alleged moral youth fighting internet blogosheric battles in the name of the embattled racist entity known as Israel.

Flag this comment

the entrenchment of the Israeli—racism propagating—eret’z Israel “disputed territories“narrative pushing—confusers of God and Remax camp at UCLA boggles the mind.. here we have students, the alleged moral youth fighting internet blogosheric battles in the name of the embattled racist entity known as Israel.

Flag this comment

Dana, you currently have a phenomenal opportunity! There are ongoing missiles landing in Southern Israel. You should go for a week or two just to get a slight glimpse of what these individuals live through. I would recommend writing about it when you get home safely.

As far as your “war criminal and an oppressive state”. Really?! I recommend picking up a history book or even reading modern day newspapers.
I agree that the current policies are not ideal. Life on Palestinians is tough. I would like for you to suggest an alternative to checkpoints. It seems that every time that Israel removes a couple of them they get hurt. Please read on the Fogel Family massacre. It happened 3 days after Israel removed 2 check points in that area.

Flag this comment

Given the nature of dialogue surrounding Zionism on campus, I’m not surprised that a number of people have jumped on these comments and started with the hatin’ by claiming this article is not balanced or that it’s rooted in a ‘brainwash-driven’ agenda. The sentiment among these commenters seems to be that Irvine 11 were acting like a mob to repress a respectable political dignitary, but the perspective of the Irvine 11 is that they were fulfilling their moral obligation to speak out against a man who has acted as an accessory to war crimes.

Having read some of Michael Oren’s writings, I would say he’s an eloquent and thoughtful man who writes well-researched but deceptively polemical works on issues in the Middle East, and he makes great strides towards reinforcing the Israeli narrative in American discourse. I don’t doubt that if the students had aired their grievances about Operation Cast Lead through the formal channels, Oren would have been quick to give them a well-prepared response, filled with a number of platitudes designed to normalize the conflict and present a scenario wherein both sides appear to be suffering equally in this occupation. That is what he does, he’s a politician, and that’s alright… but these students are not idiots either, so you can’t expect them to sit down and shut up when they’re being outright lied to. The Q&A segment at the end of Oren’s speech would not have been a genuine free speech space, as it was moderated by people who wanted to present Oren in a positive light and would not have taken kindly to students confronting him with the reality of the injustices he’s been party to.

The underlying problem is that the students would have never been able to engage with Oren in an actual space for “free speech” had they gone through all the formal channels. Thus, they took the initiative to create that free speech scenario themselves. The deep concern that the Irvine 11 had about the skewed narrative being presented caused them to take direct action in order to ensure that the realities of the Palestinian occupation would not be systemically obfuscated as it has in the past (as they have been on these comments, with absurd semantic claims that Palestine is not occupied but rather an internationally desginated “disputed territory”, regardless of the fact that the Israeli settlements have been declared illegal by the United Nations).

This is an issue that many people clearly have a stake in, and emotionally-charged discourse can be expected. By claiming, in rather emphatic all caps, that “NON OF YOU…” (presumably directed towards Palestinians and Palestinian sympathizers among the student body) “…UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF LIFE UNDER CONSTANT THREAT”, you are reinforcing a highly erroneous notion that Israeli’s are the only victims in this scenario. The death toll of the entire conflict since 1948 has included 5 times more dead Palestinians than dead Israelis (source: B’Tselem and the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs). Given this information, I think it is safe to say that Palestinians have a very real understanding of life under threat.

Hopefully my comment has provided some insight into the mindset of the Irvine 11 and the author of this article, but I can only speak for myself. Thank you.

Flag this comment

All other things aside….why are people upset that this article is biased? It’s in the OPINION section. So the author can express an opinion and people have a right to disagree whether in the comment section or in a new article. Criticize the arguments as you may but, seriously, I don’t understand why some people are upset that this opinion piece is biased.

Flag this comment

“ embattled racist entity known as Israel.” – good one Gazan. You really don’t come off too well.

If Israel was really racist, you think there would be 1.4 million arab citizens in a country whose total population is less than 8 million?

It is funny you mention Israel as an “entity” rather than a sovereign country. You sound off a lot like the current Iranian president/ UN clown.

Flag this comment

One does not even need to read all the details of the responses to this article, the obvious words pop out as they provide the basis for the ridiculous arguments that pro-Israeli’s have learned to use in every argument.
“Hamas/Buses/Terrorism/2007”
“Disputed Territories not Occupied”
“Anti-Semitism!!! Anti-Semitic!!”
“Hated Upon, Defending Security, 8000 Bombs dropped!”

When…. when…. when? when will this argument become invalid and seen for what it really is. Perhaps we should just throw simple phrases at each other without the extra nonsense in every article. “Hamas/Buses/Terrorist/2007”….“Irgun/Stern/Hagana/Shamir..1948 real Terrorists in the very true sense of the word”
“Disputed territory, not Occupied”… “Ok fine, Disputed & yet Occupied because the two groups have not yet resolved this dispute and one group continues to inhabit the space (Occupy) while the dispute is still unresolved.” That argument is truly ridiculous.
“AntiSemitism and Anti Semititc” How can you really believe that free speech exists when it might as well be illegal to question the right and validity of Israel’s right to exist. See, when we argue over the most recent instances of the problem, we tend to lose focus of the real question, that which began in the late 19th century and really ended (not began) in 1948 when Israel was finally created. How could it be so wrong and so frowned upon to say, “No, I do not believe Israel has a right to exist. It may exist wherever it pleases, but it cannot exist at the cost of another people’s existence. Not at the cost of one single persons right to exist on the geographic space on earth that they inhabited before any Zionist woke up to the idea of fulfilling some promise from the sky. It is not fair, not just, not right, not accepted to call any person fighting for their percieved right a terrorist, expecially when their actions are in response to true, original terrorism. If terrorism is the use of fear and terror to intimidate someone else to do something against their will out of fear, then that is precisely the ideology that the Zionist movement used to create Israel in its entierty. I find it hard to believe that this logic is so hard to follow by educated, rational, university students. I find it hard to believe that our upbringing is so powerful that it can answer to the Palestinian argument of “killing children, using illegal U.S made phosphorus weapons on civilians, bombing shelters, UN schools and property, destroying vital city infrastructure, withholding aid and food, and preventing red cross ambulances from reaching the injured”, I find it hard to believe that one’s upbringing will cause a person to respond to that with something like “hamas are terrorists, they dropped 8000 bombs first”. But it is the case. So until rationality hits all of us, until the bit of humanity reaches everyone, all we can respond to the gentleman who called the author “brainwashed” is.. “you too”.

Flag this comment

L.K, thanks for showing your true colors. You clearly don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist.
Your comments should be taken with a grain of salt.

Flag this comment

TrueBlue, expressing that Israel does not have a right to exist was not my hidden agenda that you just revealed for the world to see, it was precisely what I was saying. But you are trying to spin that around in a way that makes it sound to other people that I stood up on a podium, showed my “true colors” and said throw the jews in the sea.

I said: Israel does not have a right to exist on this specific bit of land, especially when it is at the expense of another people’s equal perceived right to exist. Why is this so hard to understand? Going back to the point of the article in which we are both responding to: the author tried to explain that it is more difficult for Palestinians to get their point across than it is for Israeli’s..that there are more consequences for Palestinians causing a commotion than for Israelis doing the same exact thing. and you just proved my point, because I expressed an opinion, yes I said I do not believe Israel has a right to exist at the cost of Palestinians living peacefully in their original home, and you ignore everything I said about logic and a reasonable trail of thought, and you say I showed my true colors. Flag this comment

L.K, It’s a shame you don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist on that bit of land. There are several reasons to believe that it should.

Going back to your point about the difficulty for pro-Palestinian voices to be heard, I would let you know that I would have reacted the same way had these been 11 Jewish students interrupting a Abbas, or any other PA official.

There is no doubt that pro-Palestinian voices are heard. I believe that they should be heard in order to promote academic dialogue but they must be heard in the right manner while not silencing others. I would suggest promoting circles of dialogue and debate over the typical Bruin Plaza screaming match.

Flag this comment

TrueBlue, You might have reacted the same way had they been 11 pro-israel students interrupting Abbas or a PA official. The University, however, would not have. And it most certainly would have never reached the D.A’s office. Lets face it, Oren being interrupted during a lecture is not the equivalent of a Palestinian spokesperson being interrupted. They do not have the same legitimacy in U.S politics for the other to have reached the county’s D.A office.

Another point I’d like to add is that not all Palestinians see the PA as the official representative of Palestinians. In fact, Abbas, the PA, and everyone around him mean less to some of us than dirt. Encouraging debate on campus is not always fruitful; this very neoliberal way of thinking is annoying, because while we have democratic civil discussions abroad…. Israel is free to do as it pleases with Palestinians over there…. and if it makes you feel better, Hamas too is free to bomb away as we have meaningless discussions over here. Our existential argument, yes, can be resolved through discussion and open ideas- I agree with that 100% and wish for it, but this is only possible when both parties know for a fact that they are valued and respected equally by the other party, and by the rest of the Int’l system. And this is not the case today. It is very easy to say we should do this and that, but let’s be realistic. Flag this comment

In theory the ideal government is of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore shouldn’t we as the people want a government that promotes dialogue to solve the issues? Why would a government reflect views that we ourselves don’t fight for? I want a peace process. I want a solution that solves the issues and addresses both sides fairly. But how will I know what the other side is if they dont communicate with me? I will just be continually told stereotypes and fed restricting propaganda. Therefore I want to sit down a discuss. I want a dialogue In an open and appropriate environment where ideas are heard and discussed. The Irvine 11 is not a matter of pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel. Its a matter of free speech and solely free speech. At that basic level you can’t not and shouldn’t not silence anyone regardless of their views.

Flag this comment

The MSU at UC Irvine ended up being suspended for one quarter.

Anyone who defends these students on grounds of free speech either did not read their emails or is intentionally distorting this incident.

Their emails show they went to the program to with the intent to prevent the speaker from saying whatever he wanted on the campus and to shut the program down through disruptions. These students were no friends of free speech.

This letter is an utter fail.

Flag this comment

Another area this letter fails is the claim that the MSU at UC Irvine are voicless. The MSU have had many high profile speakers speak at UC Irvine in the past few years from Norman Finkelstien, Rachel Corrie’s parents, Cynthia Mckinney, George Galloway, Abdel Malik Ali (every year from 2001 to 2010), al-Asi, Ilan Pappe, and Allison Wier. They are hardly voiceless.

The people who defend these students have two main arguments. One is that Israel is so evil that it was justified to deny others the right to hear Oren speak. They feel these students were justified in denying other people rights. The feel their cause is more important than rights of free speech.

The other is in in conflict with the first but the same defenders use it anyway. They argue that these students were merely exercising their rights of free speech. The defenders of these students do not understand or are willfully ignorant of the fact that planning and carrying out repeatedly disruptions at a speaker and instructing 40 of their friends to cheer after each interuption while the speaker is giving a lecture inside an auditorium at a university is not protect free speech. It is laughable that these tactics are praised in this letter..

Flag this comment

To Andrew- i think you misinterpreted my identity while responding to my comment- i am not some pro Israel emotionally flushed student of UCLA.
I am an Israeli citizen and a soldier of Idf. My comment was not directed at Palestinians or their supporters – it was directed at Americans in general thinking highly of themselves enough to harshly and unjustifiably criticizie the state of Israel – from their warm non threatened homes in LA.

I do relate to the pain of the Palestinians- but it is a well known fact that this unbearable conflict could have been solved several times in the past with sacrifices of both sides alike – always agreed by Israel and tossed away by Hammas- or PLO . Fact of the matter is – they(hammas) DO NOT RECOGNIZE AND SURELY NOT LEGITIMIZE OUR BARE EXISTENCE and as long as they’re in charge we will continue to defend ourselves. We all wish for peace and an end to all the hatred and killing and I am completely positive that a considerable amount of Palestinians feel the same way . They need to overthrow their Regime of hate and terror and become a partner for peace.

My original point was- do not be haste to criticize manners you cannot relate to.

Flag this comment

All I ask is that both sides look into the other side.

Hamas HAS done some heinous acts. But at the same time so has Israel.

They are two interest groups who want land that they feel is rightfully theirs.

Only difference is that Israel has much more more money and support from world powers, and consequently a much better military.

This translates to a heavily skewed death toll, many times more Palestinians are killed than Israelis.

Palestinians have soviet era small arms…. and rocks, Israel has long range nuclear missiles, and air force, drone bombers, etc.

Just something to think about.

Flag this comment

Sam wrote: “All I ask is that both sides look into the other side.”

The problem with the “Irvine 11” was they did not feel that Ambassador Oren’s side should be allowed to be heard on the UC Irvine campus.

Pro-peace, pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas students do have the right to be critical of Israel and speak out. The “Irvine 11” had the right to protest outside the event. They could have handed out leaflets that shared their perspective. They could have picked outside with signs stating why they opposed Oren’s points. They could have a speaker that shared their perspective speak at a later date. They could have written a rebuttal on a blog and sent their rebuttal points to Oren’s lecture to the university paper and other local papers. They could have increased the exchange of ideas and enriched the academic experience if they did something like that.

That is not what the “Irvine 11” did at UC Irvine.

After the MSU heard Ambassador Oren was going to speak on the UC Irvine campus. There held a meeting and 49 MSU members were present. They planned a course of action. In the minutes of the meeting they note their agenda of the meeting.

Their stated goal at the meeting:

“our goal should be that he[Oren] knows that he cant just go to a campus and say whatever he wants”

“Litmus Test – we dont want this guys to come back to UCI and give another speech”

They considered Oren to be a murder and noted at their meeting – “Stopping a murder to speak is not radical.”

Their decided course of action at the meeting

“disrupt the whole event Shut [it] down with individual disruption”

Supporting these students under the guise of free speech is really misguided.

I won’t get into your analysis of who provides weapons to the sides in conflict and the goals of the sides in the conflict and other statements you made since this is already too long.

Flag this comment

EY YO JT IS NOT A REAL PERSON IT IS MERELY A COMPUTER MACRO OF CAMPUS WATCH / STAND WITH US / BFI AND OTHER EXTENSIONS OF THE STATE OF ISRAEL’S WHITE WASHING PROPAGANDA THAT EXIST MERELY TO MONITOR CRITICISMS OF THEIR STATE TERROR AND REPRESSION ON THE INTERNET. CHANGE DOESNT COME BY FOLLOWING THE DICTATED RULES OF POWER BUT RATHER BY CHALLENGING IT! STAND WITH THE IRVINE 11! STAND WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH AGAINST INJUSTICE AND THE IMPERIAL IMPOSITIONS ON A DEFENSELESS PEOPLE!

Flag this comment