Nearly overwhelmed by protests, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert took an hour and a half to deliver a 20 minute speech at the University of Chicago on Thursday. Here’s a full report from Electronic Intifada:
Approximately 30 activists — mainly students from area universities — disrupted a lecture given in Chicago by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert yesterday which was hosted by the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy. While Olmert’s speech was disrupted inside the lecture hall, approximately 150 activists protested outside the hall in the freezing rain.
Protesters inside the hall read off the names of Palestinian children killed during Israel’s assault on Gaza last winter. They shouted that it was unacceptable that the war crimes suspect be invited to speak at a Chicago university when his army destroyed a university in Gaza in January. They reminded the audience of the more than 1,400 Palestinians killed during the Gaza attacks and the more than 1,200 killed during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 2006. Both invasions happened during Olmert’s premiership.
With interventions coming every few minutes throughout his appearance, Olmert had difficulty giving his speech and often appeared frustrated. At one point he appealed for "just five minutes" to speak without being interrupted.
The demonstration was mobilized last week after organizers learned of the lecture, paid for by a grant provided by Jordan’s King Abdullah II. Within hours an appeal was issued, urging those concerned with Palestinian rights to call the university and demand that the lecture be canceled. The call was put out by major community organizations such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)-Chicago, American Muslims for Palestine and the United States Palestine Community Network, as well as solidarity organizations al-Awda, the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, the International Solidarity Movement, the Palestine Solidarity Group-Chicago and area campus groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine chapters at DePaul University and the University of Illinois at Chicago, as well as the Arab Student Union at Moraine Valley.
The security presence at the lecture was severe with university police, the US Secret Service and Israeli security present — many of them visibly armed — with Israeli security checking in those who had registered in advance to attend the lecture. Video and photography was banned inside the hall and media were not allowed to cover the lecture. Despite these restrictions, activists managed to take video inside the hall and drop an eight-foot-long banner from the mezzanine that read "Goldstone" in both English and Hebrew, referring to the recently published UN report investigating violations of international law during the Gaza invasion. One activist was arrested and put in a headlock by a police officer, witnesses said, and released around midnight. Approximately 30 supporters waited for him at the police station while he was detained.
Towards the end of the lecture, Olmert put his hand over his brow and squinted to search out the source of the shout, "There’s no discussion with a war criminal — the only discussion you should be having is in court!" That call was made by Ream Qato, who graduated from the university in 2007, and added, "You belong in the Hague!" Qato told The Electronic Intifada that yesterday’s protest "Set the stage for University of Chicago students and students in the Chicago area … no one should be afraid of speaking out against someone." She added that the demonstration was significant because "The Palestinian community [in Chicago] for the first time went to a university campus to protest."
Second-year medical student Afshan Mohiuddin was removed from the hall after she voiced her disapproval at the Harris School dean’s on-stage assertion that Olmert was invited to express his views. "He can do that at the International Court of Justice, not at this university," Mohiuddin shouted, adding, "[Olmert] belongs in a cage, not on a stage!"
Mohiuddin told The Electronic Intifada that "it was ironic that they searched us [instead of him]," considering that Olmert is suspected of war crimes. She added, "As a University of Chicago student I was upset with the lack of commotion on behalf of the student body before the event … No one has protested the event."
Mohiuddin’s frustration was echoed in a commentary published by the University of Chicago’s student publication The Chicago Maroon earlier this week, in which third-year student Nadia Marie Ismail decried the lack of protest by the university community towards the Olmert speech. She contrasted this silence with the pressure the Center for Middle Eastern Studies faced after a lecture earlier this year by The Electronic Intifada’s Ali Abunimah (who was the first to disrupt Olmert’s speech yesterday), University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Norman Finkelstein, whose lost bid for tenure at DePaul University is attributed to outside pressure by Israel government apologists. "[T]hat 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," Ismail wrote.
Olmert’s lecture in Chicago was one of several scheduled throughout the United States. His speech at the University of Kentucky the previous day was disrupted by activists and met with a protest outside. These demonstrations are part of a wave of notched-up dissent towards Israeli officials implicated in war crimes and racist policy. In 2003, former Israeli minister Natan Sharansky was greeted with a pie in the face by an activist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. Last year at the UK’s Oxford University, a speech by Israeli President Shimon Peres was drowned out by protesters outside while students inside the hall disrupted his talk.
One of the organizers of the protest, Hatem Abudayyeh, National Coordinating Committee member of the United States Palestine Community Network, hoped for a larger count of protesters despite the adverse weather. However, he said, "The fact that there’s people around the world who know about it, the fact that PACBI [the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel] sent us a letter of support and endorsement of our action, the fact that there was coordination with the outside protest and the inside disruption — all of these components and aspects of the action made it one of the more successful ones that we’ve done."
He added, "There is real change happening, whether it’s the international response to the Lebanon war or the international response to the Gaza war. The US is the most powerful country in the world, Israel is a powerful military as well, but the Palestinians have the world on their side."
Not that I have any love or respect for Olmert, but I strongly disagree with attempts to silence people using disruptive tactics. It’s important to Democracy and the right of free speech that all sides can have their say, even when we strongly and emotionally disagree with their views. Hell, I even read the Jerusalem Post everyday just to understand the other side. While I’ve come close, I have yet to hurl my breakfast while reading the JP.
Yeah, I tend to agree. People should protest and point out his war crimes, but he should be allowed to give a 20 minute talk. Then, if there is a question period and critics aren’t allowed to ask their questions, that would be the time when disruption would be morally justified. They have a stronger case pointing out that pro-Palestinian speakers are hounded or not allowed to speak or (in Finkelstein’s case) forced out of their jobs because they are too critical of Israel and not for any legitimate reason.
This would be true jdledell except in one respect, in a major sense most that has been given the podium is nothing but the repeat of the lockstep MSM. So, in essence there is no free speech. What do I mean? I do not only mean a monopoly, but a deficiency in understanding what true speech meant as originally espoused. If you even do a cursory study of the working concept of free speech, it also meant EQUAL PLATFORM. However, there is no equal platform now and hence people must be as impactful in as short a period of time while the so to speak “cameras roll.” I this is not clear I can elaborate, but I am not going to give lessons in free speech 101, this is not the venue.
OFF SUBJECT BUT AS AN EXAMPLE
Olmert is not exactly singing opera on stage that his audience needs to chtump and listen dreamily.
And he DID launch TWO military offensives against CIVILIAN populations.
It’s okay by me if his public speech is interrupted therefore.
After all, he himself not only interrupted thousands of people’s lives, but he also TERMINATED them.
Just ask the devastated relatives of the Palestinian family who lost all of TWENTY NINE members during Olmert’s Gaza Assault.
I think it would be positively UNCIVILIZED not to make restless noise around the presence of such a psychopath.
Yeah, I saw this clip on YouTube; all the comments favored the people yelling at Olmert; they were very aware of his history. Interesting that the U vaunted Of C student body was lame in lack of protest
in comparison to so many other more plebian (cheaper, allegedly less intellectual) universities’ student bodies on this issue. SOP was uses by the U of C; attendants had to submit their questions in bdforehand
That actually changed pretty quick. A friend of mine and myself could literally see the wave of hasbara posters roll in. In 15 minutes the rating on the video dropped from 5 to 2.
American tax dollars hard at work — ain’t it great that we shell out so much foreign aid to Israel?
Citizen, I attended the UC for a few years in the ’90s. The only visibly active political group I remember was the Ayn Rand society, which covered the campus with wordy denunciations of the Clinton health plan.
Pretty much everyone is obsessively focused on their pre-professional/academic elite career, and pays little attention to current events. I remember one young professor (who had recently come from Harvard) expressing amazement at how dull and listless the extracurricular student life was.
I seem to recall Mearsheimer and Walt were allowed to appear at events only together with someone from The Lobby to provide “balance.” These demonstrators did that. Nice job.
Apparently something similar happened when Olmert spoke at Tulane University on October 13, See link to zmag.org. Although I am pleased that there were protestors at both locations, I do agree that he should have been permitted to speak. Otherwise we are no better than they are.
Mr. Olmert is a criminal. I have no problem with hassling him while he is on stage. Maybe he will be upset enough to forgo substantial honoria for spreading lies in the future. It is important to let pro-colonization Zionists taste disapproval in every non-violent way possible. Howard, we are better than they are because we are neither armed robbers nor murderers. Extremists like Olmert both in America and in Israel are responsible for massive suffering. I can live with being rude.
Colin, I agree wholeheartedly.
I’m with you, Colin.
Columbia university president introduced Ahmadinejad as follows:
“And today I feel all the weight of the modern civilized world yearning to express the revulsion at what you stand for. I only wish I could do better”.
And yet, when an actual war criminal speaks at a US university, he is extended the courtesy, the kindness and the protection that he does not deserve by the officials hosting the event.
Yes, I remember Bollinger doing that, it really infuriated me – his trying to frame the entire presentation. However, to be fair, he did allow Ahmadinejad to speak. This was pointed out to me before because I published a rather caustic piece against what he did (Bollinger’s insufferable introduction). It started like this –
“In my entire life I do not think I have seen a more disgusting display of a so-called academic administrator side with wanton hegemony in an academic setting. The only thing missing was official uniforms walking up with money bags and dropping them in front of this Judas to Academic Freedom and imitation free speech! I swear neocon should have been stamped on his head, and Zionist instigator tattooed on his ugly ass! (I’m sorry, but there is absolutely no excuse for a display, poisoning the water, like this on Ahmadinejad) Watch what I am talking about -”
I think I got a little too hot under the collar (as you can see above), this is something I have to watch out for. Even the title is over the top.
BOLLINGER THE BLOVIATING BOMBASTIC NEOCON
Adam obviously thinks it was a good thing that Olmert’s speech was disrupted. Ali Abunimeh huh?
One state. With equal rights for all, except Zionists.
Richard is that tantamount to – Israel, one state, with equal rights for Zionists only? Just asking…lol Please Richard insert your foot in you’re mouth and commence kicking hehe You are such a good object lesson
How about “…with equal rights for all, including Zionists, except war criminals”. Obviously only a vanishingly small percentage of Zionists fall into this category. Surely King Abdullah could have found an energetic Zionist whose hands weren’t soaked in blood like Mr. Olmert’s, unless the point was to ‘golden parachute’ some cash his way for some favor done for the king on his watch. Why not Prof. Dershowitz? He’s probably a vastly better speaker, anyway.
What is interesting about this, is that it is not only Olmert trying to ply his bloody wears, but the foot solder also. Earlier there was a woman Colonel Sharvit-Baruch (blonde “bombshell” spokesperson brigade), promoting war crimes at Harvard (a sort of “how you can do it” school of thought).
ISRAELI OFFICER PROMOTES WAR CRIMES AT HARVARD
Of course, this is nothing but a continuation of the stream of war criminals parade that goes to Harvard for education and “sharing” –
THE BOYS FROM ISRAEL AND HARVARD
This shows a distinct pattern, because you have this profuse exchange going on at many campus’. The pattern is that of trying to legitimize a colonial and genocidal process, and a pool of information so that other nations can set a presendent by adopting more war crimes. What does this do for Israel? Why, it is supposed to be a “get out of jail free” card by creating a precedent. This is the going thought paradigm, “if enough do it, it is not wrong anymore.” This, if not anything else, is another reason why messengers like Olmert and others in agreement should not be allowed to wash their bloody hands in the presence of our University students – at least not without a protest (the ideal being seeing it come to a abrupt halt, including domestic offenders who are in collusion with these war criminals).
I’m curious, Witty. If it were the 1930′s and the invited speaker were Joseph Goebbels, would you have been complaining if people disrupted his speech?
V…
I have a relative who went to Harvard. The school of law and the school of government – Kennedy must be rolling in his grave – are dominated by pro-Israel and pro-Zionist figures. Dershowitz is merely the attack dog, the rest work conscientiously behind the scenes, raising funds, giving scholarships to Israeli government officials and promoting Israeli agenda, studies and research.
The United States needs to join the BDS effort. An American academic, financial and cultural boycott of Israel could work wonders. The question is, how do you go about doing that when many Zionists are embedded in the US government and academia? Even the Pentagon’s comptroller is an ardent pro-Israel supporter.
Nolan I think some pointers on organization and targets can be lifted from what we have seen take place on in Hampshire –
STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE
Some of the campus’ may triangulate where there is a free flow of information on how to begin the process in earnest. This may have to take place for a period of time until to gather strength till enterprises of this type can stand on their own. So I am thinking of a hybrid of interest from many different campus to gain momentum and get past the administrative block.
You can’t even defend free speech without saying something stupid. Of course that is your right. (And boy, do you ever exercise it.)
Olmert isn’t just a Zionist–he’s a possible (actually, certain) war criminal. I think he should be allowed to give his speech–he was invited and invited speakers should be shown that common courtesy. The protestors should also be heard, but they should have waited until he was done and if no one was allowed to ask hard questions (as I suspect would have been the case), then that would have been the time to disrupt the event.
Of course anti-Zionists should also be invited and given the exact same treatment. They shouldn’t need to be invited alongside Zionists to provide “balance”. But if the administration didn’t allow hard questions to be asked of them, then pro-Zionists would have the right to be disruptive.
On thinking about this some more, suppose a Hamas official directly responsible for suicide bombing was somehow allowed into the United States and invited to speak at the University of Chicago. Would it be appropriate to shout him down? We’re not just talking about a pro-Palestinian advocate, but a Hamas official who had ordered terrorist attacks on Israeli officials.
Of course he wouldn’t be allowed into the country, and if he did there would be groups doing their best to ensure that he was arrested, and the University of Chicago would never invite him to speak and if they did there’d be around the clock protests. And there’s not a chance his speech would go forward without being disrupted.
I’m changing my mind here. Olmert isn’t just a Zionist speaker–those should not be disrupted. He’s a terrorist and our society treats him the way we treat Bush or Cheney or Rumsfeld–war criminals all, but because they are Western war criminals they are regarded as “one of us”. I suppose they are.
“terrorist attacks on Israeli officials”— I meant terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians.
Richard, the term “Zionist” both implies and infers that there is no respect for anybody’s rights, except those of Zionists. Zionism precludes the rights of others.
And please don’t spit any quotes at me. Zionism will be judged, like us all, on what it has done, not what it says about itself.
Funny, isn’t it, tho, Witty doesn’t say “except Jews”. no, he says “except Zionists”
It’s easy to tell which group he cares about. After all, the Zionists have a state, and the Jews have, well, nothing, except a few old books and smelly buildings.
Short look only. Yes, Richard, poor Olmert: Conventional, status quo. Funded by the King of Jordan?
May I be a bit cynical? Memories:
I am subscribed to an academic list. One heartbreaking letter forwarded there, I will never forget. It was from a young Canadian lady. She had experienced existential angst, so deep in fact she feared for her life and thought she finally understood the experience of European Jews under that Nazis.
What had happened?
She wanted to hear a speech by Benjamin Netanyahu at her local university, and encountered strong Palestinian protest. That finally helped her understand what had happened to the Jews in Germany, Poland … This existential threat made her thankful that Israel would always take her in, in case she encountered a similarly fierce threat to her live again.
Her “existential threat” was having to be in the presence of a protest against crimes of humanity? So democracy was just too much for her poor system to handle? And her reassurance was that more of the people related to those on the protest line could always be ethnically cleansed to make room for her in the Middle East’s biggest gated community? Huh.
Sometimes an insurance policy is of such increasingly high cost that it eventually prices itself out of the market. Further, is it possible that some young Palestinian ladies over all these decades now may have experienced akin existential angst, perhaps even a few Palestinian Canadians?
Richard:
Most here think that. Would you have been more pleased if the protesters had made their points in a Q&A session (assuming one was scheduled)? Is it not so you object their message more than their delivery?
Thanks to this heckling Olmert’s performance will now go viral. That’s a good thing.
For years Zionists have tried to shut us up. But silent no more. That must worry you a lot. It would me if I was in your place…
Whether a person is a Nazi, a Japanese imperialist, a Bolshevik, a Christian crusader, a democratic imperialist, a Belgian imperialist, a Zionist, a Hutu, an Afrikaner, Indian killer, Chilean general, etc., if they are suspected of war crimes the public should harass the suspects and clamor for their adjudication.
If Olmert were a Palestinian and had killed as many Israeli civilians as Olmert has killed Palestinian civilians, he and his family would already have been killed by assassination through missile and/or commando strikes. Israel continuously targets Palestinian resistance and political leaders for elimination, often killing many other bystanders, including the children of their targets. If equal rights should be applied to militant Zionists accused of war crimes, they would suffer more than disruptions of their speeches.
Richard, you are the partisan extremist here. Though presumably the Palestinians are our “side”, all of us agree that Palestinians responsible for terrorism (in other words, small-scale war crimes) should be treated as criminals. It is you who demands immunity for what is clearly your “side”, for even the most heinous of crimes.
All reliable information says that Olmert is responsible for serious war crimes. Do you think it is right for him to be invited to a University, given a podium and treated with respect? Given an honorarium? All that is not a right, it is an institution bestowing gifts and authority on a person who is severely morally compromised at best. That in itself is a crime (and a painful insult to Palestinians). Abunimah was right and BRAVE to do his best to stop, interrupt, and shut down that whole event.
How would you feel about this if Olmert’s orders had killed your family, as they did to so many Palestinians?
What advice would you give to students, in Palestine or perhaps some Arab state, whose universities host the leader of Hamas, for example? Should they listen politely to someone so morally compromised as their university bestows its resources and authority on that person? How should we have received Milosevic if he ever spoke in the U.S. before his trial?
Looks like students with conscience are too learning hacking tactics from Muslim-hating Daniel Pipes’ “Campus Watch”. According to Pipes’ watcher – his pro-Israeli thugs monitor 22 universities for criticism of Zionist-regime. The list includes UNC, Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Stanford.
I have not read the contents of Olmert’s speech, but I bet it could not be different than Bibi’s opening speech at Knesset on October 11 – Iran is the biggest threat to world peace, Palestinians don’t want to live in peace with Jews, Goldstone’s report is baised toward Israel, etc., etc…..
Bibi: Israel is “a Jewish and civilized state”
link to rehmat1.wordpress.com
Driving Olmert off the podium is an expression of free speech. Whatever dreck this war criminal was going to say has already been said over and over again in the multiple forums inside the US. Those who support the Palestinian view have been boycotted in every forum outside of US universities. We all know that the national press including NPR does not present the Palestinian perspective because, if they try, the lobby will retaliate with their own boycott movement. It is only actions such as this that allow the opposition to Israeli war crimes to have some voice.
I think that the lobby is so fearful of the BDS movement because they are fully aware of how effective boycotts can be. The lobby has perfected the fear of boycotts. Anytime a newspaper or radio station has presented the Palestinian view, they have been driven back by the threat of such a boycott. Only one view is allowed to be presented in the US through normal channels. These people in Chicago have succeeded in pushing the Palestinian perspective into the politcal discourse. More power to them.
For those who believe that this type of action is a free speech issue, then please raise your voice when the lobby boycotters exclude people like Mearshimer, Walt, Finklestein, numerous Palestinian scholars and other critics of West Bank expansionism from speaking in public forums.
Brilliant. Moral. Clear-headed.
==========================
Driving him from the podium an assertion of free speech?
Yes, absolutely.
At my University, there was meant to be a discussion about why the I/P issue is always in the front seat of student politics. The only problem is that no-one was invited to represent the Palestinians, and the Israeli spokesman spent the entire time attempting to justify the War on Gaza. In such circumstances, I think driving the speaker from his/her podium is the only option. In the end, that is what happened and every false assertion that the speaker made was challenged by people in the Q&A session.
Witty, you keep talking about this conference like there was balance there. How many Palestinian leaders were invited to talk, huh?
Richard, please educate yourself on what “free speech” is. Free speech means that Olmert can say whatever he wants. It does not mean that he is immune from reaction to it.
By your definition, you do realise, every Jewish Temple should now be turned over to the neo-Nazis.
I don’t even know why I’m bothering to write this. I’m sure, as an intelligent American citizen, you know what “free speech” means in our tradition. But the needs of Has bara always supercede anything as inconsequential as factual truth, don’t it, Richard.
“Driving him from the podium an assertion of free speech?”
It depends on whether anti-Zionist speakers are ever invited and allowed to talk, or failing that, if tough anti-Zionist questions would have been allowed by the university administrators. If anti-Zionist speakers are allowed or if tough questions are asked, then driving someone off the podium is wrong. If Palestinian or pro-Palestinian speakers never get to give talks and if tough questions are filtered out (which is what I’d expect from a typical college President), then shouting Olmert down is arguably justified, though I’m still uncomfortable with it. Better, IMO, to still let him speak and then, if the questions to be asked are all softballs, start shouting him off the stage.
At the U of C event, there was a Q & A followup; the audence sent in questions to the speaker on cards. Some of those were then selected to actually be asked. How were
those selected, and by whom? Anyone know?
I don’t think taking joy in the refusal of an audience to let someone talk is really a step forward. Many arguments can be made for this, but ultimately this will end up biting you (or someone you wish to hear) in the ass some day.
Its an idiocy.
Olmert left likud, following Sharon, but also in protest against the proposal that Palestinians don’t deserve sovereignty.
Did you complain when Ahmedinejad was treated rudely when he came to speak in the US? Were you that vociferous about protecting speech then? I’m curious.
Now you’re defending Olmert rather than free speech. That’s an irrelevancy, unless you think it would be okay to shout Sharon off the stage.
I think that Sharon and Olmert are both war criminals–the fact that Olmert was supportive of long term peace while being extremely brutal towards civilians in the short run makes him rather like you in his position.
That is nice but irrelevant that he left Likud Richard, seeing that all parties are agreed that that expulsion and or extermination of Palestinians is job number one (see Operation Cast Lead under Olmert). Olmert’s move from one party to another is about as significant as a Republican becoming a Democrat, they both serve the same corporate state. However you know this, and you’re post is nothing but a disingenuous continuation of your other posts.
And he launched this ‘war’ against Gaza partly to secure his legacy. Leb II having been a disaster, Big Ehud needed redress and Israel needed to reassert its deterrency. Little Ehud was all for it too… All planned moths in advance, cyber-army of 101 Keyboard Hasbarists prepared and ready.
Olmert didn’t beieve that Palestinians deserved sovereignty either.
He gave token support for a Palestinians state only to preerve Jewish majority in Israel, not because he cares less about Palestinian sovereignty. In fact, he gave a speech in front of the Knesset saying that he believed in Israel’s right to all the land from Jordan to the sea (probably including Jordan itself), so he’s no different to Likud.
I’m not convinced by your argument nor am I impressed by your framing of the issue.
blockquote messed up my entire post.
I’m not convinced by your argument nor am I impressed by your framing of the issue.
You seem to be confusing “joy” with “moral outrage” – and emotion with tactic. If war criminals like olmert have to think twice the next time they plan on making a public appearance anywhere in the world, then the goal has been achieved.
Which is a nice idea. War criminals should not feel easy while travelling first-class to Europe or America.
See what even Israeli sources are saying about Baraks’s Grand Tours:
link to haaretz.com
Civil disobedience is an appropriate means of speaking out to protest ongoing crimes against humanity. I applaud the protesters who spoke out against Olmert’s hasbara and “blood libels” against the Palestinians.
Shingo – can I get a link or copy of the transcript to this specific Knesset speech that you are referring to?
AM,
The speech was not to to the Knesset but to Congress.
“For thousands of years, we Jews have been nourished and sustained by a yearning for our historic land. I, like many others, was raised with a deep conviction that the day would never come when we would have to relinquish parts of the land of our forefathers. I believed and to this day still believe in our people’s eternal and historic right to this entire land. ”
link to washingtonpost.com
He was not specific about the borders of the “entire land,” but then, the Zionist enterprise never has been, for good reasons: permanent expansion is a very important internal dynamic. If Olmert is still faithful to his origins in Likud, he may have meant both sides of the Jordan, including the current state of Jordan, at least valuable parts of it.
Ahamdinejad should not have been invited to speak. The rudeness of the president of Columbia University when introducing him was a minor inconvenience. People who opposed Ahmadinejad’s invitation should have been picketing outside the hall where he spoke. Once he was invited (and rudely introduced) he was allowed to speak.
If you feel that Olmert should not have been invited, fine. If you wish for him to be introduced with an insulting introduction, fine. But once invited he should be allowed to speak.
The precedent will bite you in the ass someday, as I said.
Precedent? As if the precedent wasn’t already set by the right wing at quite a while ago.
You have an amazing tolerance for the heinous actions of others as long as those actions coincide with your own racism and bigotry, don’t you? Columbia University’s president poisoning the well before a speech is a “mild inconvenience” as far as you’re concerned (so much for academic etiquette and objectivity!) but you’ll go out of your way to condemn violations of etiquette against Israeli butchers.
Meanwhile, still no free speech for the goyim:
Yankees Pull Plug on Ronan Tynan After Tenor’s Bad Joke About Jews
link to abcnews.go.com
“Meanwhile, still no free speech for the goyim”
America Fust-Cless, I’m gonna change your name to America Fust-Cless Kvetch.
I know how oppressed and helpless you feel if you can’t make anti-Semitic remarks and spread lies about Jews, but try and bear up, pal. Remember, at the rate intermarriage is going, soon there will be very few Jews, and all of your Fust-Cless offspring will be a little bit Jewish! Won’t that be great?
Say, Fust-Cless, you got a daughter?
Not to worry, Goosey, the House just passed the Hate Crimes Bill and pretty soon
the special federal government agency monitoring anti-semitism in the USA will send America First to prison for his comments. BTW, the anti-semitism the Irish tenor
admitted to was that he told a real estate agent that he hoped the new tenant(s) wouldn’t be any of the Jewish ladies that had been coming around and looking at the vacant premises because “they were scary.” Members of the tenor’s band are Jewish.
link to abcnews.go.com
Assimilation is definitely worrisome to the “Silent Holocaust” types; and a major
Zionist reason for the justification of the state of Israel (right up there with the Shoah itself these days). Say, Goosey, do you have a daughter or son?
C’mon, Cit. This guy makes an anti-Semitic remark and America Fust-Cless Kvetch claims there’s “still no free speech for the goyim”.
Mooser’s right.
Still, anybody ever calls me an “Irish tenor” and I will strike them hard upon the mazzard, regardless of age or sex. What an insult!
America Fust-Cless is confused, like most wing-nuts, between free speech, and the consequences of speech. Sure the “Irish Tenor” had the right to say whatever he wanted, and nobody had the right to stop him. He is also entitled to all the consequences of his speech, in this case possibly losing his job and being exposed as an idiot.
So, as usual, America Fust-Cless thinks that anti-Semities and racists should not only be free to say what they want, which is quite true, but should be immune to the consequences of this speech. And BTW, how on earth do you do that?
But, come to think about it, that’s about par for anyone who calls themself a “Libertarian”.
The Jewish American tenor
admitted he told a real estate agent that he hoped the new tenant(s) wouldn’t be any of the Gentile men that had been coming around and looking at the vacant premises because “they were scary.”
While said tenor had the right to say what he did, he shouldn’t have expected to be immune from the consequences of his speech anymore than any Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, etc, has the right to elected, or reelected after being exposed as an idiot not even dimly aware of the consequences of his or her conduct
and recommendations “for the good of the American people.”
What do you think was actually communicated by the Abunimeh “leadership”?
I expect that part of what was communicated (especially noting that Abunimeh will have been identified to Zionists), is that dissent seeks the same relentless non-compromising condemnation of everything Israeli as it has historically.
That Abunimeh would be associated with such a disruption puts a nail in the coffin of any civil approach to a single state.
What would be communicated if somehow a Hamas official alleged to be responsible for ordering terrorist attacks was allowed to come to the US and invited to speak at the University of Chicago? That probably didn’t even cross your mind. I have to admit I was a little slow to see the analogy myself. But there it is. A Hamas terrorist would not be allowed into the US and certainly wouldn’t be invited to give a talk and if he was, there would be massive protests and his talk would be shouted down.
Olmert isn’t just some pro-Zionist speaker–it’d be wrong to shout down that sort of lecture, though Lord knows we hear enough of them anyway. He’s someone with the blood of hundreds of civilians on his hands.
It just wouldn’t occur to you to see it that way. But it took me longer than it should to see it that way myself.
Donald:
The Abunimeh’s of the world (and many of us with them) should give the same treatment to Bush, Blair and many of the other war criminals at large. Problem is: the West divides the world into ‘our war criminals’ and ‘their war criminals’…
Noun
dissent
Disagreement with the ideas, doctrines, decrees, etc. of a political party, government or religion.
An act of disagreeing with, or deviating from, the views and opinions of those holding authority.
Witty’s usage of the noun dissent:
“…dissent seeks the same relentless non-compromising condemnation of everything Israeli as it has historical.”
Just pointing out what all the regulars here know so well, that is, that Richard
Witty uses abstractions in a very special way, and he is totally consistent in his usage. He has his own dictionary.
Witty, on the topic of the notion of protest and discourse, I notice that you avoid articles like this, like the plague:
link to mondoweiss.net
What’s the matter? Got nothing to say in defense of your favorite little regime when they deal with protesters in what I would guess you might characterize as an “efficient” manner?
ot:
It looks like the Turks set a precedent. Israeli pols must be quite unhappy, although not yet enough to stop their ethnic cleansing and colonization.
Med Union summit at risk over Egypt boycott of Lieberman
Until and unless these types of demonstrations against the criminal militant aggression of Israel become worthy of main stream media attention these protests will not change policy or public opinion. Disruption of a war crimes suspect’s speech serves to communicate to the speaker the odiousness of the crimes committed, accuse the speaker as a perpetrator and to create a confrontation that might catch the media’s attention. Bravo protesters. Olmert, unfortunately is no longer in a leadership position, not to mention on trial for petty corruption, so it is doubtful the national media is going to inform the masses about what happened yesterday. Prevent Netanyahu from speaking and it might interest a larger national audience. Do it to Obama or H. Clinton and the story will reach a national audience. Disobedient protest has to go to the highest levels to become effective.
So, this is a job for Code Pink?
Antioch University.
Pingback: Netanyahu’s New Rules
Pingback: Olmert speaking tour continues to be disrupted by the reality of Gaza
Pingback: Ehud Olmert struggles to give Univ. of Chicago lecture amid protests | JewPI
Pingback: Olmert is a Zionist legend (argues “journalist”) | Antony Loewenstein