This Thursday, the Harris School of Public Policy is inviting former Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, to speak at a leadership conference. It is interesting that a man like Ehud Olmert would be asked to speak on leadership, considering he is regarded within his own country and across the globe as a corrupt leader and a criminal.
The Harris School seems terribly misinformed about Olmert: They introduce him, on their event site as “one of the most respected leaders in Israel’s history.” This is a shocking description considering Olmert is the antithetical opposite of respected: He is actually the first, and only, Israeli prime minister to have ever been brought to criminal court by his people. He was charged with multiple counts of corruption including fraud, breach of trust, fraudulent registration of corporate documents, concealing fraudulent earnings, and more. His people repeatedly called for his resignation, causing him to step down as the leader of his political party, and proving that he is, in fact, one of the least respected leaders in Israeli history.
The Harris School advertisement makes another, much more appallingly ignorant statement when claiming that “Ehud Olmert became Prime Minister with a courageous vision: achieving prosperity through peace.” This is absolutely ridiculous. It is especially absurd when one takes into consideration the fact that just last month Ehud Olmert was found to have committed war crimes, as reported by the United Nations Goldstone Report, which spent months investigating international law violations made during the Israeli attack on Gaza last year. UN Justice Goldstone reported: “We came to the conclusion, on the basis of the facts we found, that there was strong evidence to establish that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian law and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza,” operations lead by Ehud Olmert.
Last year during the attack on Gaza, Olmert lead his army into the densely populated neighborhoods of Gaza, killing more than 1,400 Palestinians and wounding 5,300 others by indiscriminately attacking mosques during prayer services, schools, homes, ambulances, and hospitals, all of which are civilian targets.
Olmert began his term as Prime Minister with the invasion of Lebanon, which was described by his own government as a “serious failure in exercising judgment, responsibility, and prudence.” He held the ruthless collective punishment that was the siege on Gaza (in response to the Gazans’ democratic election of Hamas) throughout the middle of his term, leaving more than 80 percent of the Gazan population hungry and devastatingly impoverished, and ended his term with the war on Gaza. His “vision” clearly did not lead to peace.
Despite all of this, I’ve found that the overall reaction to this event on campus has been silence. To me, the lack of buzz surrounding this event is shocking. It is extraordinarily shocking when one takes into consideration that just months ago when the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) co-sponsored an event that brought two local professors (one being our own John Mearsheimer) and a journalist to speak on the crisis in Gaza, that University center was put under unprecedented pressure for weeks before and months after the event, with claims that University centers and schools should not host “one-sided” speakers. I doubt Ehud Olmert will present an unbiased opinion, and I wonder how there is not a single word of consideration to be heard by the campus community just days before the speech of a war criminal who destroyed thousands of lives. The Harris School is not receiving even a tiny fraction of the response or the heat that CMES received, and I am utterly confused as to why.
Nadia Marie Ismail is a third-year in the College majoring in the biological sciences.
Read this article on iChicago, our free iPhone App.
Discussion
AFSHAN MOHIUDDIN
October 13th 2009 at 07:47 PM
I completely agree....I can't believe the University has the audacity to invite him.
KHALIL
October 13th 2009 at 09:38 PM
Glad to see someone has the sense to realize this war criminal shouldn't be welcomed at our university.
ZISHAAN FAROOQUI
October 14th 2009 at 12:52 AM
Well since he has been invited, the least we can do is make him feel unwelcome. I feel as though my alma mater is seen as an institution that exists in a bubble outside of societal context. Therefore, it's okay to legitimize the actions of a war criminal by allowing him to speak. This will seriously affect my donations to the University if this goes through without consequences.
SHIREEN A.
October 14th 2009 at 01:00 AM
Goo Nadia! Alhamdillah for people like you. This must be said and put out there, silence on such situations is just plain wrong.
ILYA
October 14th 2009 at 09:42 AM
The war crimes charges are dubious. The Goldstone Report never had access to Israeli sources and hence cannot have the full picture and probably the less biased view of the Gazan conflict last year. However, I do agree that Olmert is a criminal in traditional terms and hence does not deserve to be given an ear. What offends me is the title "Conversations with the Honorable Former Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert". Honorable he is not. He should not be here and it is ridiculous, but let's be careful about the "war crimes" allegations.
ALLAN SIPPER
October 14th 2009 at 10:16 AM
Congrats to the University for inviting Olmert.
Nadia's comments are what one would expect from an "educatedL Israeli basher, who's ultimate goal is nothing less than the destruction of Israel as a JEWISH state.
Before, you condem Olmert for his activities in Gaza, one needs to ask the question, what was Olmert to do, given that Israel pulled out of Gaza, the Gazians "elected Hamas", Hamas faclitated and assisted "Gazians" in shooting rockets into Israel, murdering Israeli citizens?
A. TURMAN
October 14th 2009 at 12:24 PM
Ms Ismail is absolutely correct. The invitation to an indicted felon, who is due in court on charges of stealing from his own people, is ludicrous.
Of course this is peanuts compared to the charges made against him for presiding over the murder of innocent women and children, entire families even.
I'm an alum, and I'm disgusted.
The Harris School of Public Indecency.
HODA
October 14th 2009 at 12:31 PM
Mr. Sipper,
I like your sense of humor. I mean, you are kidding, RIGHT!? Because last I checked, killing one person, let alone over a THOUSAND INNOCENT PEOPLE, definitely makes one a murderer. So maybe you can understand why a few people are a little riled up...
ALAN SIPPER
October 14th 2009 at 02:07 PM
Ms Hoda
Hamas and its associates in Gaza shot over 12,000 rockets into Israel. How would you propose stopping them?
It is time for the Gazian's to accept responsibilty. Lets remember that THEY ELECTED HAMAS, who's main goal in the destruction of the Jewish state.
Olmert did what he had to do. Also remember, Israel could have easily carpet bombed Gaza. But then more people would have been killed. Israel took the least damaging route, at the cost of putting its own civilians at risk.
If you disagree, propose a better solution for Israel!! (and by the way, committing suicide is not an option!!!!)
RRLEDFORD
October 14th 2009 at 03:39 PM
Olmert should be arrested as a war criminal, just as Bush & Cheney should, and and some day will be. To bad that the U.S. is too complicit to ever take such action.
The Israeli treatment of Gaza is in effect an incremental genocide of the Palestinian people.
What will be Israel's next "Defensive action"? =>
Building Gas Chambers in Gaza?? Zionist Rothschild puppets. Free Israel from ZIONIST scum corrupt leaders.
RRLEDFORD
October 14th 2009 at 04:05 PM
I will be there to make Olmert, his entourage, and any of his local supporters all unwelcome in Chicago
ANGERED COLLEGE STUDENT
October 14th 2009 at 08:05 PM
Why is this article not in the actual print? I find this exceptionally disturbing, especially considering one of the most provocative (and true) claims of the piece is the relative silence shown by the University community regarding Olmert's visit. What is the maroon, or any newspaper, if not a vehicle to inform the public on community events that otherwise would go unnoticed. This is an unspeakable oversight by the maroon staff. Before you credit yourself with praise and parties, be sure to do a good job with your task at hand first. So far, so bad.
CONCERNED STUDENT
October 14th 2009 at 11:47 PM
Zishaan that is the problem. If you were to read the security attachment sent to everyone who RSVP'd questions are screened before they are asked, and no postcards or placards are allowed inside the room. This really questions UofC's freedom of political views. As the first poster said, disturbing indeed
C.M.
October 15th 2009 at 12:44 PM
Ilya: The UN did not have access to Israeli records and "evidence" because Israel fully refused to cooperate with the investigation, despite Goldstone's request that they do so. If Israel actually had valuable evidence to counter Goldstone's claims, I imagine Israel would have gone to great lengths to have it included in the report. Any time someone claims innocence in a criminal invesigation but simultaneously refuses to cooperate with the investigators, that casts doubt on their innocence in the first place.
Alan: For starters, Olmert could have lifted the blockade of the Gaza Strip and renegotiated a ceasefire with Hamas on that basis. He could have worked toward peace in Palestine by freezing all settlement activity the day he took office (pursuant to Phase I of the Roadmap for Peace), and proceeding to dismantle the separation barrier and checkpoints. He could have ended the nighttime raids in the West Bank against civilians. He could have stopped firing tear gas at protestors. These issues are not separate; they're all the same issue. It's beyond disingenuous for Israel to cry foul at Hamas rocket attacks on Monday and then build a new settlement or arrest another child on Tuesday.
NIHAYA
October 15th 2009 at 01:30 PM
TO Allen Sipper...
I think you are not looking at the big picture correctly. Last I checked... Israel is an occupying power over the Palestinians, and by International Law they have a right to defend themselves against their occupier. Rockets aren't being sent to Israel because people want the destruction of a "Jewish State" It is because they are living in a virtual prision and have been treated as second class citizens since the formation of your illegal state. When rights are stripped from beneath you and your family and neighbors are jailed and killed over the course of 60 years... I think u'd shoot a rocket over to the enemy... or do whatever you can to defend yourself. I am not condoning the killing of any innocent victim (on either side) however, when you bring up the rockets and how Israel must defend itself... why don't you look into WHY they are propelling the rockets in the first place. I dont think you complained much when groups like the Haganah or Stern Gangs used horrendous methods of violence against the natives of the land. Oh, but u must think they are heros right? I think the only misguided person with hatred is you, not the writer.
LAMLUMA
October 15th 2009 at 01:39 PM
Why doesn't your school give voice to other terrorists and war criminals while they are at it--Olmert is no different than other war criminals and terrorists that you talk about ! If according to some of you, Hamas, Osama Bin Laden, Taliban,Nasrullah and the list can go on are also terrorists and war criminals they should also be given a voice in the Harris School. For the same reason you have given Olmert a platform to speak from. Why ever not? Oh, i forgot Olmert is a FELLOW terrorist, but Hamas and others are terrorists period !!!! What double standards are these ! Who is teaching you guys !
WILL WESTER
October 15th 2009 at 06:45 PM
I'm sincerely disappointed in the level of discourse shown by UChicago students since I've left. First, go look up what the term "war criminal" actually means; Mr. Olmert is certainly many things (a criminal in the more mundane sense probably among them), but he's not a war criminal (nor are Bush and Cheney, though the case for labeling them as such is significantly stronger than that against Ehud Olmert), and neither, Ms. Hoda, is he a murderer. I'm fairly sure they teach the mandate of the state and the idea of state monopoly of legitimate force in a variety of first year classes. I find it exceptionally offensive to label him as such, because once more we're flinging around terms in situations where they don't apply, and are thereby trivializing every situation that they had previously described. If you complained about the Bush administrations overuse of the word "terrorist" while presently calling Ehud Olmert, George Bush, or Dick Cheney a war criminal, you should be profoundly ashamed of yourself for what you're doing to our language.
As far as the Goldstone Report is concerned, I'd like to politely ask that further references do not omit commentary on the sections that address Palestinian culpability in civilian casualties. Or, indeed, the conclusion (specifically, I think that a careful reading of paragraph 1672 is probably in order. And 1674. In fact, you should probably reread all of section 30; an interesting parallel exercise is to go through an underline everything in the report that demonstrates misconduct by Palestinians under international law), which might be a pretty damning indictment of Israeli policy in general, but fails to say anything at all about charges of war crimes against anyone specific. In point of fact, the closest they come is a recommendation to the ICC that effectively amounts to "keep on truckin', baby", and a recommendation to the Israeli government to get its act together regarding the investigation of IDF activities.
It's disingenuous to suggest that unilateral violence of the part of the Palestinians was the cause of the conflict, especially since Israel's main claim on Gazan land appears to stem from the ancient legal principles of acquiris quodcumque rapis and ego sic dico, but it's equally disingenuous to suggest that it was unilateral violence of the part of the Israelis that caused same (except in the most technical and specific sense, which is to say that they deployed troops to Gaza).
Seriously, though. The main problem I have with this article is what I see as a dangerous politicization coming at the expense of genuine academic and scientific interest in empiricism. The moment we being using phrases like "he shouldn't be heard", starting sentences that imply that another's opinion must be a joke, is the same moment that we close ourselves to legitimate and genuine discourse, which is far and away more disturbing than any choice the University could have made regarding a speaker. You wonder aloud why there is such silence on campus regarding, and then level your full vitriol at anyone who dissents. I'm pretty sure that's your answer.
p.s. The things I mentioned at the beginning of the last paragraph are also bad form, and serve to make your opinions look significantly less legitimate.
JUNE
October 15th 2009 at 09:14 PM
This is rediculous,clearly proves american baise. It also proves thier ignorence of what goes on around the world. This man is a war criminal and is internationally known for the attrocieties he committted against people and his violations of human rights, if you invite him to your school, your clapping for that, your wishing you were the ones to do it.
ALY T
October 15th 2009 at 10:18 PM
Will Wester,
You wrote more than 30 lines of text to try to sell the idea that killing thousands of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon does not make one a murderer, or a war criminal. You have failed miserably, Sir. Simple common sense will always trump Latin-bearing apologetic arguments.
RRLEDFORD
October 16th 2009 at 02:40 AM
Mr Sipper - In my Chicago Pilsen neighborhood on 4th of July thousands of explosives and rockets were fired off in celebration. No one was killed, which was a couple people less than the number of Israelis killed by the 12000 rockets you cite. The cumulative explosive weight and damage potential of these 12000 rockets combined ALL TOGETHER is barely greater than one single of the largest Israeli bombs dropped on the densely populated neighborhoods of Gaza. The outrageously disproportionate nature of the bombardment of the civilians of Gaza is a war crime. Yes the firing of rockets by Hamas is wrong, but it is the illegal and ceasless Israeli occupation and abuse of the Palestianian that brings about this result. Tyranny makes terrorists.
Were Israel being abused for decades, by by deeds like destruction of its infrastructure, I suggest a lot more than 12000 pip-squeak rockets would have been fired back at the abuser country.
Israel promotes the infighting between the various factions struggling to represent and protect the Palestinian people, and Israeli fingerprints can be seen all over the emergence of Hamas.
MARK
October 16th 2009 at 07:20 AM
Isn't a University a place where all ideas are heard? Isn't that the last remaining place where one can open their closed minds? You all like to think you're cool and hip to protest speech, you are all fools.
ALAN SIPPER
October 16th 2009 at 07:34 AM
NIHAYA
Lets go back in time and remember how this all started.
In 1948, who, attacked who? (73, 67, 3 etc).
From the begining the Jewish state has been under attack by the Arab world. Their ulimate goal has and is the destruction of the Jewish state.
The Arabs have purposely used the palestinians as pawns. It is time they accepted responsibilty.
Question: Why is Eygpt not willing to take back Gaza? (Remember, Israel in a defensive war, conquered it from Eygpt.) Question why will Jordan not take back the West Bank?
Reason, because then the goal of the destruction of the Jewish state becomes less likely!!!!
Israel left the adminstation of Gaza and the west Bank to the Arabs and how was it rewarded - suicide bombing and rockets). And you are surprised that this resulted in Israel taking security measures to protects its citizens. I am sorry that my fellow Jews are tired of being killed, because if we were good guys, we would just commit suicide!!
WILL WESTER
October 16th 2009 at 10:45 AM
Aly T,
I suspect you missed the point of what I was saying. Indeed I was claiming that Ehud Olmert is neither a murderer or war criminal under the definitions of those terms. I wasn't calling him a good person (indeed, I think he was a terrible leader, is a criminal, and did a huge amount of damage to the peace process, but that's a discussion for another time), or implying that I think the Gazan Offensive was in any way right (it wasn't).
I wasn't defending Israel, either. Indeed, quite the opposite; the Latin "legal principles" I mentioned translate to "you get what you grab" and "because I say so", neither of which are very good justifications for what Israel has done, but, you must admit, appear to be their main justifications for occupation. The point behind those lines was that Israel was and is not acting appropriately, but neither is Palestine, and that those arguing for and against either side don't seem willing to acknowledge that.
A.S.
October 16th 2009 at 01:03 PM
ALAN SIPPER
You are right Arabs goal was to destruct the Jewish state. But do you know why?? Because after the world war Jews wanted to establish a state for them so they went to Palestine and started to kill anyone who is not Jew (Muslims or Christians) (woman or a child) and made a lot of massacres to make the Palestinians escape of fear to other countries "refugee problem". That's why Arabs made the 1948 war. The other wars started by Israel not by Arabs to occupy more lands to make greater Israel.
I challenge you If Israelis accept the right of the Palestinian refugees to exist and return to their homes and I am sure there will be no reason for any other wars.
NIHAYA
October 16th 2009 at 01:35 PM
Alan, why do u think the Arabs went to war in 48, etc... It is because the Jews laid a BASELESS claim to land that was inhabited by Palestinians. Ones who are NATIVES of the land, with an ancestry that goes back way longer than any of the European Jews could ever dream of. You can't tell me that you wouldn't fight tooth and nail, for the rest of your life, if someone walked into your home, stole it and never left. That is the basis of this whole situation. Not that the poor Israelis keep getting attacked in all of these wars... maybe if they didn't completely try to wipe out an entire nationality, people wouldn't be so upset at them. And for you to cry that Arabs want the destruction of the Jewish state is complete hypocrisy... It was the Jews who destroyed the Country of Palestine, the Arab culture, the Muslim roots... And they continue to do so. People were executed if they did not abandon their homes.... Groups like I mentioned before (Haganah, Irgon... etc) Committed terrorist acts, blowing up hotels and car bombs and killing anyone in their way, long before 1948. Look at those facts before you point the finger and blame the Arabs for starting anything. And to answer your question, Egypt, Jordan and most other Arab countries are sell outs. They made a deal with Israel to save their own asses. I didn't say anything good about them, and they don't have any claim to Palestine either. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, there were Jewsih Palestinians long before the idea came of having your own Jewish racist state. That state belongs to Muslims, Christians and Jews alike... I also think its funny that Jews always say, "we offered the Arabs 90% and they declined" or "We gave them the West Bank and Gaza and they are still attacking us" How naive you are... I lived there during the supposed Oslo Accord era... the only thing they did was remove the daily military presence. We had no freedom that they claim, we still had to go through the Israeli government for everything, homes were still demolished, illegal settlements still built and expanded, road blocks everywhere. THATS WHY THEY CONTINUED attacking, because Israel makes a deal in public and NEVER holds up its end of the bargain in private, then cries foul when someone retalliates. Please don't try and school me on the situation, I am fully aware, I lived it and I'm not brainwashed by the Western Media and Biblical references that Jews don't even believe in their religion. The Torah states that the Jews are not to even lay claim to the Holy land until their Messiah returns... if you believe he has returned you are Christian... and if you don't, then your supposed to wander... Them being there is illegal - PERIOD.
SABRINE
October 16th 2009 at 03:00 PM
One thing that struck me throughout the protests was how American students used to protest Apartheid South Africa.
You make sure that just has they prevent the freedoms of others, they are not accorded any freedoms.
Whats disgusting is the Chair who spoke in Gaelic. Was he for real? HE IS FROM IRELAND AND HE INVITES A WAR CRIMINAL. Maybe he should ask the people of Derry what they would do if a war criminal like this every tried to speak at their local university!
BAFFLED COLLEGE STUDENT
October 16th 2009 at 04:31 PM
Will Wester,
You're a JEW right??? I know you feel you defend your people, but common sense is common sense. You don't call a person who is responsible for killing thousands a murderer, what term should we use? Would you call Hitler a murderer? Because if i went by your definition, i would call him a saint...
C.M.
October 16th 2009 at 09:31 PM
Alan, let me help you out here because your history of the conflict is lacking.
We Jews have had a continuous, uninterrupted presence in Palestine for thousands of years. For the majority of that time since the Arab conquest, we were coexisting more or less peaceably with Arab society. Although we (like Christian Arabs) were designated second class citizens relative to Muslims, we were still granted a degree of religious tolerance as a people of the book. The point is, we've never needed a "Jewish state" in Palestine to have a vibrant community there. Our traditional enemies were not Arab Muslims but European Christians, who since the Crusades seldom distinguished between Jews and Muslim (and Christian) Arabs. Anti-Semitism is a wholly European invention, not a Muslim one. The Russians in particular did more to foment modern anti-Semitism (viz. the idea that Jews are an international financial and political conspiracy) than anyone else with the publication of the forged anti-Semitic tract, Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Zionism was not created by nor intended to represent world Jewry, especially Jews already living in Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, etc. It was a movement consisting of white, European Jews seeking refuge from European anti-Semitism in Palestine. The racial aspect of Zionism can't be stressed enough. At its core, it was a colonial ideology, advocating for a (mainly European) Jewish home in Palestine TO THE EXCLUSION OF THE NATIVE POPULATION. It explicitly rejected the lifestyle of Jews already living in Muslim countries (coexistence with Muslims). Nevertheless, it initially gained little currency among European Jews, who were more influenced by secular socialist calls for social and economic equality within Europe. The Bund (organization of Jewish workers), for instance, openly rejected Zionism.
Zionism did, however, gain currency with the British government during and after World War I. The British supported the Zionists for two reasons. Firstly, they wanted to earn the support of Russia and the US, with their large Jewish populations, in the war against Germany. Secondly, and more importantly, they wanted to encourage and maintain a large European community in their former colony of Palestine, seeing as Arab decolonization was now inevitable. A nation of European Jews in the Middle East, many of whom might themselves be British emigres, would help Britain maintain control of the area after nominal Arab "independence." Like I said before, the RACIAL aspect of Zionism is key to understanding its history.
The Zionists did much to earn the anger of Arab locals. Exploiting the area's feudal property system, they used their wealth to buy large estates from absentee land owners without the consent of the tenants living there, then evicted the tenants from there homes and set up exclusive agricultural colonies called kibbutzim. Remnants of Arab culture there were taken down. Now, it's not as if it had to be this way. Some Jewish settlements, including those funded by the Rothschilds, allowed Arabs to live and work in and around the settlements, and they peacefully coexisted with Jewish settlers. But Zionism is an ideology of exclusion, as I said before, and so the vast majority of Zionist settlements were not like this. Because of this pattern of encroachment and eviction, the Arabs rioted in the 1930s. In 1939, the British took action by limiting Jewish immigration and land transfers to Jews.
The Jews were always a small minority in Palestine. The British proposed severa plans for partiton, and in each plan the Jews got substantially less than they eventually would (mainly concentrated around the Galilee and the coast north of Yaffa, where the Jewish settlements were generally located. Even here, however, they were not at all a vast majority). However, when a UN commission elected by a vote of 8-to-3 to partition Palestine, the Jews, who composed about 30 percent of the population, won over 50 percent of the land. Over half of an Arab country was now under the control of a minority that was itself politically exclusionist toward Arabs.
Until the generation of mainly Zionist "New Historians" such as Benny Morris, the Israeli version of the 1948 war was this: There were never any Arabs in Palestine. During the war, the Saudis, Egyptians, etc. used the Arabs as pawns and encouraged them to pretend to be persecuted and exiled (or exiled the Palestinians themseves) so that when they eventually conquered Israel, they could claim those beautiful Jewish homes. Jews never massacred or exiled anyone. Of course, we now know that this is a lie, though some people still believe it. We know that 750,000 Palestinians were exiled, the vast majority by Israelis. We also know about massacres like Deir Yassin, where Israelis killed men, women and children under the command of future Israeli prime minister, Menachim Begin. It is indisputable that there was, at least in part, a program to depopulate Palestine/Israel of Arab communities, consistent with Zionism"s ideology at the time of exclusion.
WILL WESTER
October 17th 2009 at 12:30 PM
Baffled College Student,
Nope, not Jewish, and I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't matter if I was. And as I've been at great pains to point out, I'm not defending anyone. Ehud Olmert is not a murder on the basis that he has not, unlawfully, personally killed anyone thought a direct act of agency, which is what that word means. Hitler? Yeah, war criminal, by my definition. Which comes from the dictionary.
NIHAYA
October 17th 2009 at 03:50 PM
C.M. Thank you. That was very well said, I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm glad that there are people out there who have a true knowledge of real history.
RRLEDFORD
October 18th 2009 at 12:37 PM
Will Wester: When you lead a country and authorize its military to commit war crimes, you become complicit.
Mark: Should the university promote speech by people who promote principles like genocide, eugenics, pedophelia, neo-Nazism, cannibalism ... I think not. Should Bernie Madoff speak to economics students on effective investing strategies like how to run a Ponzi scheme? I think not.
BALLAL-DIN SACKRUB
October 19th 2009 at 02:53 PM
Will Wester,
do you realize how utterly ridiculous you sound arguing over terminology? I don't care what definition you have. In this day and age, you don't have to run up to someone and stab them to death to murder them, you can do it by giving someone the order to do so. You are still held accountable for that.
And how dare you actually sit here and debate over a stupid word when people in Gaza that are starving to death due to Olmert's policies and have lost beloved ones due to his orders don't even have the luxury to have others hear their voices.
This school should be ashamed of itself for inviting a murderous scumbag like Olmert. And Wester, quit spouting that nonsense, you're embarrassing yourself and it is completely useless to argue such a stupid point.
JON GANZARSKI
October 20th 2009 at 02:47 PM
To state that the 1948 War began in response to Jewish massacres of Palestinian Arabs is to leave out half the truth.
In 1929, Arabs, incited by FALSE rumors that Jews were murdering Arabs and taking over Muslim holy places in Jerusalem, rioted in Hebron, Jerusalem, Safed and other places in modern Israel. In Hebron, 67 Jews,many of whom were defenseless elderly people, or young students of Hebron Yeshiva. In Safed, 18 Jews were killed.
In 1936, Arabs responded to mass Jewish immigration from Europe (Jews fleeing death at the hands of the Nazis), by rioting in Safed, Hebron, Tiberias and Jerusalem. This led a general revolt from 1936-1939, with many flare-ups of violence against Jews. For example, on 10/2/1938, 20 Jews were killed in Tiberias. None were killed in Hebron, because the British government in control moved out all the Jews, ending over three thousand years of continued Jewish settlement in the city.
While Jews may not be blameless in the violence leading up to the creation of Israel (see: the Irgun, the Lehi), Arabs committed atrocities as well, which should not be ignored or whitewashed.
HANNAHF
October 20th 2009 at 10:32 PM
Nadia should stay away from politics (where her OPINIONS are obviously skewed and groundless) and focus on her biological sciences studies.
God Bless!
UNIVERSITY SHOULD APOLOGIZE
October 21st 2009 at 12:11 AM
HANNAHF, firstly, Nadia speaks the truth. Secondly, why are you trying to silence dissent? It's people like you who should stay away from politics.
NIHAYA
October 21st 2009 at 12:13 AM
Jon, ok, the war started in 1917 when the Balfour Declaration took place and the ideals of Zionism began to really surface. Jews were beginning to immigrate not only because of what they were escaping from, but with a bigger plan to take the land of Palestine (before the Holocaust). For anyone to ignore that fact, is simply ignoring history. And as plain and simple as I can possibly be... If you felt threatened and people were starting to take over your land and home... would you not attack them? Would you do everything you could to protect yourself, your home and your family? I highly doubt if you were in the same position, you'd hold the same argument. As far as HannahF is concerned... Nadia did an excellent job with this piece. You don't always have to be Pro Israel to be right. You'd be suprised.
HODA
October 21st 2009 at 10:44 AM
HannahF, believe it or not, it is possible to do both. Furthermore, I doubt that you would stay quiet if the University invited a speaker that murdered your family members. I applaud Nadia for having the courage to stand up for what she believes in, and we WILL NOT be silenced until the University Administration fully understands the consequences of the Olmert event and apologizes.