NYU students feature Israeli soldier who attacked Mavi Marmara during ‘Israel Peace Week’

The New York University Israel Club, called Gesher, is organizing an “Israel Peace Week” to counter Israel Apartheid Week. One of the events features an Israeli soldier who took place in the attack on the Freedom Flotilla last May. From the Israel Peace Week website:

Thursday, March 10th
7:30pm – Silver, Room 207

Aboard the Turkish Flotilla: A Firsthand Account
Don’t miss this extremely unique opportunity to hear from an IDF Navy Seal who was one of the first Israelis to board the Mavi Maramara ship during the Turkish Flotilla incident last May.

Please register here: https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:Join/signupId:76888/acctId:9463

Co-sponsored by: Birthright Israel NEXT

An email advertising the event described it this way: “don’t miss this extremely unique opportunity to hear from Amir, an IDF Navy Seal . . . Amir will speak about his experience at large and will also answer questions about his specific experiences last May.” The don’t use his full name to hide his identity out of fear for being prosecuted for war crimes.

A counter protest is in the works. Here is the annoucement:

Mobilize against Mavi Marmara War Criminal @ NYU Thursday!

In response to Students for Justice in Palestine’s increasingly successful ”Israeli Apartheid Week,” Zionists at NYU have put together ”Israeli Peace Week.” And in a truly disgusting move, they have included – and advertised - a navy seal who was one of the first on board the Mavi Marmara. See below for part of the original email, which presents the war criminal as “an extremely unique opportunity.”

We need to send an unequivocal message that war criminals are not welcome on our campuses. Help Students for Justice in Palestine at NYU protest outside the building, and please forward this message, rsvp on facebook here, and post/invite friends.

Meet: 6pm, outside of Silver Center (100 Washington Sq E, 10003)

RSVP HERE

The Mavi Marmara:

Eastern Mediterranean, Monday, May 31st, 2010, 4.30am: Israeli commandos, boarding from sea and air, attack the six boats of the Gaza Freedom Flotilla as it sails through international waters bringing humanitarian relief to the beleaguered Palestinians of Gaza.  Within minutes, nine peace activists are dead, shot by the Israelis. Scores of others are injured.  The 700 people on board the ships are arrested before being transported to detention centers in Israel and then deported.

Within hours, outrage at Israel’s action echoes around the world. Spontaneous demonstrations in Europe, the United States, Turkey, and Gaza itself denounce the attack.  Turkey’s prime minister describes it as a “bloody massacre” and “state terrorism.” Lebanon’s prime minister calls it “a dangerous and crazy step that will exacerbate tensions in the region.”

About Adam Horowitz

Adam Horowitz is Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 0 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Max Blumenthal put up a facebook post about this last night. I wonder if there’s a way to compare this IDF seal to images that were smuggled out by Iara Lee and others, to see if he was in the vicinity of Furkan Doğan at the time of the latter’s death. If so, could the IDF seal be detained and questioned under oath about what he knows? Are any Mavi Marmara passengers going to be there to see if they can ID him for possible crimes against any U.S. citizens aboard who survived?

    • Kathleen says:

      on the same page. Will contact Medea Benjaman and Col Anne Wright about this. Short notice, but you never know

    • Potsherd2 says:

      This is why IDF troops and border police are starting to wear ski masks when they commit their crimes, for fear of being identified and charged.

      I wish Iara Lee’s footage could be shown in Congress. And Congress forced to watch it.

    • fuster says:

      Who is to detain and question him and who is to compel oaths and answers?

      • ToivoS says:

        No problem. Piracy is an international crime, recognized by the US and any victim of piracy who were attacked on the high seas has jurisdiction in US courts to bring a case. They do not even have to be US citizens, only establish that a crime on high seas occurred and that the pirate is in the US. These laws go back 300 years so there is a lot of precedent as well as common legal definitions for what constitutes piracy between different Western nations.

    • pabelmont says:

      Talk to NLG or CCR to find a lawyer to draft a JOHN DOE complaint for civil damages against this guy and serve him at the meeting. Furkan Dogan’s paretns might be the complainants.

      • Kathleen says:

        Furkan Dogan’s father just spoke in New York. Wondering if he will attend? Would really like to hear what he would say to this Israeli soldier. Hell this guy could have been one of the murderers who blew bullets in his sons head at close range.

        Wonder if his father is still in close proximity to this event?
        link to occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com

        Wonder if Adam or Phil know where he is? He would wipe up the carpet with this guy

      • Potsherd2 says:

        Belmont you are a genius!

    • Kathleen says:

      Phil nothing over at FDL about this although not surprised. Has Rayne successfully driven the discussion away from FDL. Looks like it. Will you be posting something about this soldier?

  2. Kathleen says:

    Folks should read the UN report about the massacre on the Mavi Marmara outside or near this event. Invite some of the folks on the flotilla. Col Ann Wright, Ambassador Peck etc. Read that report out loud as well as the Goldstone Report

  3. seafoid says:

    Perhaps they can ask the Navy Seal how he feels about the siege collapsing and political failure and how it influences his work.

    • Kathleen says:

      Or if he was one of the soldiers who blew Dogan away at close range? Would he like to have a meeting with Furkan Dogan’s father to discuss matters

      Or does he know where all of the recording equipment is

  4. Kathleen says:

    Some of these folks must be in the region?
    link to gazaflotillasurvivors.posterous.com

  5. lysias says:

    Can Turkey submit to the U.S. government a request for this guy’s extradition?

    • ToivoS says:

      Yes they probably can under piracy laws that have been in affect for 300 years. The US has agreed to honor those laws at least with Europen and South American countries. There are active attorneys here in the US that have handled piracy cases.

  6. Chu says:

    The IDF ‘navy seal’ as part of Gesher’s Peace week?
    He’s going to explain how bringing lentils to Palestine
    is a danger to Israel. Prepare the international arrest warrant.

    The wheels are surely coming off the hasbara bus.

  7. Potsherd2 says:

    You know that this has to have been organized and promoted by the IDF and the Israeli government. What a tone-deaf bunch of thugs!

    • Kathleen says:

      They will probably be recruiting for the Israeli army on campus

      • hophmi says:

        “They will probably be recruiting for the Israeli army on campus”

        Where do you come up with this crap? He was there. He has a story to tell. You apparently aren’t interested in hearing it.

        • fuster says:

          stop it, hop. trying to confuse Kathleen’s mind, already made up, with the facts is cruel.

        • annie says:

          He was there. He has a story to tell. You apparently aren’t interested in hearing it.

          you don’t know squat and neither do i. the goi claiming this was one of the soldiers means squat. this is a pr offense to up israel’s image. for all you know this is a soldier from the pr department on tour. he could be trained from a script. there is no reason whatsoever to assume any of this is truthful. none.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          Why is he on campus telling his story? Shouldn’t he be on duty? Who has the authority to send active-duty IDF troops around the world on story-telling missions?

        • hophmi says:

          “you don’t know squat and neither do i.”

          But the soldier does, because he was apparently there.

          “for all you know this is a soldier from the pr department on tour.”

          Because when Palestinians from Gaza come, it has nothing to do with politics at all, because all Palestinians are pure as the driven snow.

          “he could be trained from a script.”

          lol. Because pro-Palestinian activists have no talking points whatsoever, and never use them anyhow.

          “there is no reason whatsoever to assume any of this is truthful. none.”

          So, because you have a partisan belief that what the soldier says is untrue, you don’t believe he has a right to speak.

          Glad you’re not running the country.

        • ToivoS says:

          He was there. He has a story to tell.

          That was true for Ted Bundy as well. But first things first: 1) incarceration and 2) tell your story to a jury.

        • Ha!
          That way everybody wins. Soldier gets to have his story and his trial covered worldwide – instant Hasbara karma.

          My guess, US will not arrest him, no matter who he turns out to be.

        • pjdude says:

          son of sam has a story too doesn’t mean anyone rational person wants to here it.

  8. Kathleen says:

    Would really be effective if some survivors of the flotilla confronted this soldier

    link to kitv.com

    Hope someone ask him why Israel confiscated all recording equipment and executed 9 human rights activist? I thought there was a woman on the flotilla who was a holocaust survivor on the flotilla who lived in New York. Hope she goes to this event and challenges this soldier

    • Chu says:

      I wonder if he’ll go into the spiel about how their had knifes at the soldiers throats? This event should be recorded, given this was an incident that occurred in international waters and killed 8 Turks and 1 American, without a clear understanding of the events.

      Can you imagine the Israeli pilots from the attack on the USS Liberty going to Oxford University in 1968 to provide the reasons as to why the event occurred? I don’t think so.

  9. Kathleen says:

    Where does Ambassador Peck live? Would love to see this man of conscience challenge this soldier
    Ambassador Peck who was on one of the ships in the flotilla. Ambassador Peck where are you? Anywhere New York?
    link to youtube.com

    link to youtube.com

    Keith Olbermann really stepped out of the box when he had Ambassador Peck on his program to talk about the executions and the flotilla. Olbermann stepped into the truth waters

    • Chaos4700 says:

      That’s why I miss Olbermann deeply, among other reasons. Maybe he was mostly quiet about Israel, but when he did confront the topic, he was honest. Very much unlike Rachel Maddow, who is just about as honest on that topic as Christine Amanpour or Wolf Blitzer.

      • Kathleen says:

        He definitely stepped his toes much further than Chris Matthews who showed the Israeli released clip of the Israeli soldiers going down on the rope onto the ship 9 times in seven minutes. He hammered the human rights activist and then never said another peep.

        Rachel did show a bit of the clip that the one activist was able to get off the ship. But that was that

        When Olbermann had Peck on I was surprised. This was a big step for him.

        None of these MSNBC folks touched the Goldstone report or the UN report about the massacre on the Mavi Marmara. Silent about both of those reports

  10. seafoid says:

    I saw a John Trudell youtube video recently where he talked about how everything living on earth has a pattern of behaviour. He was looking at it in terms of US society but it applies equally to Jewish groups like birthright Israel. And the pattern for them and for Israel itself is in times of stress to retreat to the shtetl. Zionism was supposed to be about leaving the shame of the diaspora for good, but there is no leaving of it.

    • Mooser says:

      Oy Vey! Seafoid, would you get angry if I gently corrected you? The “shame of the diaspora” is the shame and regret at breaking the covenants with God, and losing His favor. And the “shtetl” if I am not mistaken, is not a place Jews wanted to live, it is a generally a place they were forced to live. Naturally, such a situation of enforced anti-Semitism is to the advantage of those Jews who act as intermediaries between Jews and the anti-Semitic society.

      • Mooser says:

        This tendency to treat of the Jews as if they were some kind of unity, is to begin with anti-Semetic, and unrealistic. Anotherwords, the assumption that all the Zionist leaders must have been thinking only of “the Jews” and their betterment. It never seems to occur to anybody that in a situation in which an identified group like Jews, are kept from full participation, the victimisers and manipulators and sociopaths among them will act on their own group, since they don’t get a whole lot of access to the dominant group. In fact, those who have the means will exploit their own cohort in co-operation with the dominant group.

        Perfect example (at least to me), those Zionists who claim that Israel is “a haven” for Jews. Do they not know that after the invention of the bomber airplane and ballistic missle there are no “havens”, or do they keep on harping on that because it has an irresistible appeal to poor and brutalised Jews who don’t know any better? The only possibility of a “haven” is peace with their neighbors, but that doesn’t advantage certain classes of Israelis who act as intermediaries between Israel and the world, does it?

      • Kathleen says:

        “Jews who act as intermediaries between Jews and the anti-Semitic society.”

        Which would be everyone who criticizes the crimes that Israel commits or the Israeli lobby.

      • Citizen says:

        Mooser, I think I understand you, but it would help, since you’ve said the same thing before re Jews breaking the covenants with God re the bible, how specifically do you see Jews breaking those covenants with their God today? That the Golden Calf is Israel? Anything besides this false worship, or simply that Jewish error today all stems from that? And, perhaps, from following the likes of Madoff? Anything else more specific?
        Is the Christian counterpart to the Jewish error contained in the rhetorical capsule question, What would Jesus do?

      • seafoid says:

        Are you sure about that Mooser? The Zionist was the Jewish guy who didn’t get sand kicked in his face. I read it in Beit Hallami’s Original sin I think. The Sabra was supposed to break the link to all of that shy bookish Jewishness and replace it with a muscular action man who would never have walked into Auschwitz.

        Israel is just a Mediterranean shtetl in the sun. Look at that wall and the fences .

        • andrew r says:

          “The Sabra was supposed to break the link to all of that shy bookish Jewishness and replace it with a muscular action man who would never have walked into Auschwitz. ”

          Or they only like to think they are. Zionism is an integral part of Judaism, last I heard, so either that’s bunk or hardly any Jews before 1941 were Zionist (Or both).

      • seafoid says:

        How did “the Jews” “break their covenants” with g-d, Mooser ?
        I mean , what did Bruno Schulz do wrong to be shot in the head by a Nazi ?

      • RoHa says:

        Mooser, I know that trying to make sense of theology is usually a doomed enterprise, but I too have questions about the covenant and breaking thereof.

        From what you say, it seems that
        (a) God and Jews made a deal
        (b) Jews welched on their side
        (c) God got pissed off and said “Deal’s off.”

        So why do so many Jews keep up the Judaism stuff as though the deal were still in operation?

        It isn’t the only show in town. Why not have a word with Ganesh or Buddha or any of these guys?

        link to heraldryclipart.com

        link to image.shutterstock.com

        I’m sure you make an arrangement, and you wouldn’t have to cut bits off your willies, celebrate mass slaughter, or drink disgustingly sweet wine.

  11. Kathleen says:

    Where does the honorable Hedy Epstein live? Can you imagine what she would say to this Israeli soldier?

    link to youtube.com
    link to google.com

  12. Chaos4700 says:

    Ugh. This is insulting. This man should be answering questions at the Hague, not doling out propaganda at an American university.

    History books are not going to treat us kindly. This man aided and abetted (and for all we know, was personally responsible for) the deliberate cold-blooded murder of a US citizen.

    • Chu says:

      this is insulting, and sad that NYU will allow this on campus.
      I demand Peter King hold hearing about this.

      • Kathleen says:

        Really allowing Israeli terrorist who kill human rights activist to lie on their campus. Wonder if he will be allowed to recruit dual citizens too? You know to come and serve in the Israeli army so you too will have the opportunity to kill innocent human rights activist and then have it sanctioned by the U.s. Calling Peter King

        Congress people in New York who demanded that the flotilla be investigated but the Israeli executioners

        link to dailykos.com
        Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – NY):

        “The passengers aboard Turkey’s flotilla either are considered terrorists or at the very least willfully aided terrorists” … “Our existing laws are clear and we ought to follow them — anyone that aids and abets terrorism cannot be issued a visa.”

        • hophmi says:

          “Really allowing Israeli terrorist who kill human rights activist to lie on their campus. Wonder if he will be allowed to recruit dual citizens too? You know to come and serve in the Israeli army so you too will have the opportunity to kill innocent human rights activist and then have it sanctioned by the U.s. Calling Peter King”

          Once again, you’ve said this several times on this post.

          Guess what: Israeli soldiers are people too, and they have a right to speak just like your side does.

        • annie says:

          foreign soldiers have a right to speak on our campuses?

          seriously hophmi that is ridiculous.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          Criminals only have the right to speak through their lawyers, or as prison officials allow.

          Bradley Manning is a soldier, why isn’t he speaking on campus?

        • Saleema says:

          He thinks our campuses are Israeli campuses.

        • hophmi says:

          “foreign soldiers have a right to speak on our campuses?”

          Um, yeah, why would think that they don’t? That’s truly ridiculous.

          You don’t have to be a citizen of the country to exercise your right to free speech inside of it.

          Please, take that argument to court – “Col. Schwartz doesn’t have a right to speak because he’s a member of a foreign army.”

          Let me know when they stop laughing.

        • marc b. says:

          foreign soldiers have a right to speak on our campuses?

          stop it, annie. trying to confuse knobknee’s mind, already made up, with the facts is cruel.

        • hophmi says:

          “stop it, annie. trying to confuse knobknee’s mind, already made up, with the facts is cruel.”

          Let’s be clear here. We’re not debating the facts. We’re debating whether a person has a right to speak on a college campus. The arguments here are that he shouldn’t have a right to speak because he is:

          A. A foreign soldier.
          B. A “war criminal.”

          A is dumb; there is nothing preventing a foreign soldier from speaking on a college campus. B is not true; this person has not been convicted of anything.

          The idea here is that you people are trying to shut down debate by excluding voices with whom you disagree. Which is exactly what you accuse my side of doing.

        • hophmi says:

          “He thinks our campuses are Israeli campuses.”

          Nope, I just believe in the First Amendment.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “B is not true; this person has not been convicted of anything. ”

          False. This only shows that he is not a “convicted” war criminal, not that he is not a war criminal. He is a war criminal regardless of whether he ever faces justice.

        • marc b. says:

          nobody has an unmitigated right to appear on a university campus to speak freely or otherwise. and the first amendment, which you are hucking about ignorantly, applies to governmental restrictions on rights of free speach, assembly, etc. maybe you should spend a few moments reflecting on the facts before you spout off. and the whole point of people’s objection to this cretin on campus is the fact that his point of view is hardly novel or unheard. he’s not there to enlighten, but to propagandize. again, where’s the balance you types moan about when a palestinian is scheduled to speak? huh?

        • hophmi says:

          “nobody has an unmitigated right to appear on a university campus to speak freely or otherwise. and the first amendment, which you are hucking about ignorantly, applies to governmental restrictions on rights of free speach, assembly, etc. maybe you should spend a few moments reflecting on the facts before you spout off. ”

          Yeah, yeah, I understand all that. Most private universities act in the spirit of the First Amendment by not censoring speech. You know, like Columbia with Mahmoud Ahmadinnerjacket.

          “the whole point of people’s objection to this cretin on campus is the fact that his point of view is hardly novel or unheard. ”

          Really? So is it your contention that most NYU students study the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have heard soldiers speak before?

          You think this because you follow the issue. Most people are ignorant of the entire conflict, which includes both narratives. And regardless, your objection that his view is not novel is hardly a reason to censor his speech.

          “he’s not there to enlighten, but to propagandize.”

          Give me a break. Give me a political cause where the speaker is not there to propagandize.

          “again, where’s the balance you types moan about when a palestinian is scheduled to speak? huh?”

          What balance do you want? Are Palestinians not permitted to speak at NYU?

          You’re throwing up desperate arguments here.

        • Its not about a right to speak, its more about the right to hear.

        • Shingo says:

          Its not about a right to speak, its more about the right to hear.

          Are you in need of a hasbara refresher course Witty?

    • ToivoS says:

      The US courts have jurisdiction under well established piracy laws, there is no need to send him to the Hague. The beauty of these laws is all crew members, not just the commanders, can be found guilty if their ship was engaged in an act of piracy. Two hundred years ago many an able-bodied seaman from pirate ships were found guilty and hung.

      • fuster says:

        Toivo,

        piracy laws pertain to acts of piracy.

        this incident does not fit the definition of piracy.

        your beauty is in your own eyes.

        • ToivoS says:

          fuster you wish, it most definitely fits the definition of piracy. Why do you think that this Israeli seal decided to not attend the event? Because he has good legal advice, that is why.

  13. Kathleen says:

    Hedy lives in St Louis. I would donate money for this ladies flight to New York for this event
    link to en.wikipedia.org

  14. Kathleen says:

    Sent off a few emails to different folks I know in the area about this event. Also sent an alert to Medea Benjaman, Amy Goodman who will be speaking in New York on Friday. Would really like to see Amy show up at these events.
    link to tour.democracynow.org

    Cover these events

  15. lysias says:

    First time I’ve seen the Freedom Flotilla referred to as the “Turkish Flotilla”.

    Aboard the Turkish Flotilla: A Firsthand Account

    Don’t miss this extremely unique opportunity to hear from an IDF Navy Seal who was one of the first Israelis to board the Mavi Maramara ship during the Turkish Flotilla incident last May.

    Is that what they’re calling it in Israel? I guess “Freedom Flotilla” wouldn’t do.

    • eljay says:

      >> I guess “Freedom Flotilla” wouldn’t do.

      “Turkish Flotilla” isn’t strong enough. “Terror Flotilla” – that’s what they should be aiming for. It provides the appropriate framework for Israel’s assault-and-murder “victimhood” rampage against the MM.

      • fuster says:

        eljay,

        if Israel thought it was a terror flotilla, they wouldn’t have sent a small boarding party.

        they would have followed the traditional method of putting two rounds in the bridge.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      You haven’t heard it call the “terror flotilla”?

      link to ajc.org

      • eljay says:

        >> You haven’t heard it call the “terror flotilla”?

        No, I was just being facetious. Wow, so it’s actually been called the “Terror Flotilla”. That’s…well, that’s pathetic!

  16. jon s says:

    Here’s a wild idea: why not listen to what this IDF soldier actually has to say about his experience?

    • Kathleen says:

      How about reading the Un report about what took place out loud (hand it out at the event). Make sure you hand this soldiers a copy. READ IT OUTLOUD
      link to www2.ohchr.org

      IF YOU HAVE NEVER READ THE REPORT YOU SHOULD! AT THE VERY LEAST PAGES 23-30

      Page 23
      ” Furthermore, the fact that some passengers engaged in last minute efforts to fashion rudimentary weapons shortly prior to the interception confirms the findings of the mission THAT NO WEAPONS WERE BROUGHT ON BOARD THE SHIP”

      Page 25
      “The mission does not find it plausible that soldiers were holding their weapons and firing as they descended on the rope. However, it has concluded THAT LIVE AMMUNITION WAS SUED FROM THE HELICOPTER ONTO THE TOP DECK PRIOR TO THE DESCENT OF THE SOLDIERS”

      Page 26
      “At least one of those killed was using a video camera and not involved in any of the fighting with the soldiers”

      “Forensic analysis demonstrates that tow of the passengers killed on the top deck received wounds compatible with being shot at close range WHILE LYING ON THE GROUND: FURKAN DOGAN RECEIVED A BULLET IN THE FACE AND IBRAHIM BILGEN RECEIVED A FATAL WOUND FROM A SOFT BATON ROUND (BEANBAG) FIRED AT SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HIS HEAD THAT PARTS SUCH AS WADDING PENETRATED HIS SKULL AND ENTERED HIS BRAIN”

      THE UN REPORT ESPECIALLY PAGES 23- 30 SHOULD BE READ OUT LOUD AT THE EVENT. Ask that soldier if he was one of the soldiers who executed these human rights activist at close range?

      • fuster says:

        Kathleen, that report is from the UN Human Rights Council.

        That should be noted.

        • seafoid says:

          Fuster, are you Antony Wiener ? You can’t hide behind imaginary antisemitism and the US veto forever, you know. Sovereignty brings responsibility. If you don’t like criticism you might think about Israel giving up on the institutional bigotry.

      • hophmi says:

        The report confirmed that several passengers were armed with clubs and chains, just as the soldiers said they were.

        The report confirmed that they were armed before the Israelis got there, thus discrediting the idea that the passengers were non-violent. Moreover, the report confirmed that the principal antagonists were IHH leaders, thus confirming that much of the violence came from this “humanitarian organization.”

        The report confirmed that soldiers were captured and that other soldiers might have been justified in thinking that they faced a threat of imminent harm or death.

        The report appears to confirm that shooting started only after the passengers violently resisted the boarding of their vessel from the Zodiac.

        The report confirmed that soldiers were stabbed and that soldiers’ firearms were taken.

        Perhaps most importantly, the report confirmed that the Freedom Flotilla was there primarily for political purposes, not humanitarian ones, and is critical of the deliberate confusion of these two aims by the leaders of the flotilla.

    • marc b. says:

      but, jon s, what about ‘balance’? where is the counter-narrative so important to those who whine on about bias every time a palestinian has the nerve to speak in public?

    • annie says:

      why? because this is a propaganda campaign and israeli spokespeople lie.

      • jon s says:

        Annie, you simply assume a priori that anything from the Israeli side is a lie. I recall -from other threads – that you implied that the archaeological record that I referred to is a lie, or when I wrote about the rocket in the classroom. How convenient. You can’t lose.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          He is there to lie. That is his purpose. That is the reason he was sent there.

          He’s not speaking as a free individual, he was sent there on a propaganda mission. Words are weapons as much as bullets.

        • Avi says:

          jon s March 9, 2011 at 4:30 pm

          Annie, you simply assume a priori that anything from the Israeli side is a lie.

          Anything from the Israeli government’s side is a lie, calculated, and carefully disseminated. There is no need to hear it or listen to it to know that it’s nonsense from the outset.

          Individuals have views, they have opinions which sometimes vary. The Israeli government has one train of thought, one view that it seeks to propagate.

          So, this thug was sent to NYU to speak on behalf of the Israeli army as a member of the army, not as a neutral individual.

          If you can’t see the difference, then what’s the use of arguing with you, ad nauseum?

        • hophmi says:

          “Anything from the Israeli government’s side is a lie, calculated, and carefully disseminated. There is no need to hear it or listen to it to know that it’s nonsense from the outset. ”

          Sure Avi. Whatever floats your boat.

          “Individuals have views, they have opinions which sometimes vary. The Israeli government has one train of thought, one view that it seeks to propagate. ”

          Well, this is one soldier. Not the Israeli government.

          “So, this thug was sent to NYU to speak on behalf of the Israeli army as a member of the army, not as a neutral individual. ”

          Your point?

          “If you can’t see the difference, then what’s the use of arguing with you, ad nauseum?”

          As far as free speech is concerned, there is no difference.

          But if you don’t understand, then what’s the use of arguing with you, ad nauseum?

        • RoHa says:

          “Annie, you simply assume a priori that anything from the Israeli side is a lie”

          This is a fair assumption. Israel and its supporters have lied so much, for so long, that we have come to expect nothing else.

        • Avi says:

          “So, this thug was sent to NYU to speak on behalf of the Israeli army as a member of the army, not as a neutral individual. ”

          Your point?

          My point? My point is that Penguin migration in the winter contributes to the high price of cheese in Nigeria.

          Did Zionists suddenly develop an inability to understand basic English?

        • hophmi says:

          No, I think non-Zionists have an inability to understand that Israelis and Palestinians are fighting each other in the Middle East, not in the United States.

        • Shingo says:

          Whereas Zionists have an inability to understand that Israelis are fighting Palestinians are fighting to steal land.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “Here’s a wild idea: why not listen to what this IDF soldier actually has to say about his experience?”

      Sure, right after we listen to the Sudanese gunmen talk about how THEY kill innocent people in Darfur… (And to call this terrorist Israeli thug a “soldier” is to insult all the world’s real soldiers.)

      • hophmi says:

        “(And to call this terrorist Israeli thug a “soldier” is to insult all the world’s real soldiers.)”

        Which would those be? The ones who killed Iraqis at checkpoints because their car was going too fast?

        Perhaps it is members of the Chinese Army who enforce the oppressive dictatorship.

        Maybe it’s the ones in Afghanistan?

        Or maybe it’s members of the Revolutionary Guard.

        Oh well, either way.

        • Chu says:

          homphi, i know you love to insult the US military.
          I’ve seen you do it before. Why is that and you’ll defend
          the IDF?

        • hophmi says:

          “homphi, i know you love to insult the US military.
          I’ve seen you do it before. Why is that and you’ll defend
          the IDF?”

          You misunderstand. I don’t insult the US military. I say that what the US military does is similar to what Israel does. And if someone went and investigated every operation where civilians were killed, the same reports would likely be issued, causing the same reaction from the US – non-cooperation and non-acceptance.

  17. Citizen says:

    They must be very confident that their intended audience will view this IDF Seal as an average American would a US Navy Seal. An icon of unselfish, manly loyal service to the Good Way.

  18. Kathleen says:

    Now let me see if I have this straight. NYU is allowing students to bring one of the murderers on campus to speak but the Y in New York would not allow Furkan Dogans father to speak? Do I have that right?

    Where is his Furkan’s father now.
    link to occupiedpalestine.wordpress.com

    Can you imagine if he stood up and asked this soldier some direct questions? Did you kill my son for filming what was going on? did you look into his eyes after bullets were shot into his head at close range? Do you have that camera the film?

    • hophmi says:

      “Now let me see if I have this straight. NYU is allowing students to bring one of the murderers on campus to speak but the Y in New York would not allow Furkan Dogans father to speak? Do I have that right?”

      Probably not.

  19. Avi says:

    This is appalling on many levels.

    The Israel student group’s name, Gesher, means bridge in Hebrew.

    They must be under the illusion that they are building bridges with Palestinians. So shallow and hypocritical.

    Also, note how they glorify this criminal by stating he is part of a “Navy Seals” unit.

    It’s pathetic. But, it also illustrates how delusional are Israelis and Israel’s supporters. An attack on a humanitarian aid ship in international waters is considered a good PR event to improve Israel’s image. Those people live in an alternate universe.

    • Kathleen says:

      All they have to do is read the UN report out loud. Read the report. Hand it out. Encourage people to read it

      • Avi says:

        Kathleen, I’ve read the report when it first came out. I agree, it’s a must-read.

        link to www2.ohchr.org

      • hophmi says:

        A report in which there is not one Israeli soldier witness. A report which comes from a body that spends nearly 50% of its time on Israel, ignoring real human rights violations around the world. A report which criticized the flotilla as confusing political with humanitarian.

        Why do you only want to hear things that you agree with?

        • Cliff says:

          Real violations of human rights? What would you know about real versus ‘unreal’ violations in the first place?

          Israel is focused upon as much as it is, because it commits a lot of crimes.

          You apparently want to chalk up this interest to:

          antisemitism

          That’s really it. I can’t think of why anyone else would want to randomly focus on poor Israel, from your perspective.

          So all these NGOs, because it’s not just one, are antisemitic?

          The crimes are severe and real. You just want to create your own standard that absolves Israel while focusing on everyone else. Whereas these other NGOs, focus on everyone. And since, Israel is a ‘western’ type of country with all these ridiculous problems (COLONIALISM) it’s magnified.

          If it weren’t a first-world/western type of country then the situation may not be as bad.

          Your entire argument, just like most of your other arguments, are like that idiotic line we heard from Zionists on TV about how we’d attack Mexico if they were firing rockets at us for years.

          You always leave something out or you skew the picture to present your ridiculous cartoon-like story.

          The only people who buy it are:

          other Zionists, who get progressively loonier, ranging from liberal- to Christian-
          Right-wingers
          PEP libs
          sell-outs(congressman, clergy, celebs, etc.)

          People who can be bullied and bought out too of course. Your arguments are like the company you keep – MORALLY BANKRUPT.

          Get over yourself hops.

        • Chu says:

          “A report in which there is not one Israeli soldier witness. ”

          They were muzzled you fascist lover.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          Since Israel refused to allow its troops to testify, it’s no surprise that their testimony didn’t appear.

          Your posts today have a distinct tone of desparation, hophmi. Why not just give up, admit Israel is a war-criminal state, and join the party.

        • hophmi says:

          “Israel is focused upon as much as it is, because it commits a lot of crimes. ”

          Half of them? That’s the percentage of UNHRC resolutions focused on Israel. If you believe Israel is half the world’s human rights problem, then you’re either misinformed or delusional.

          “You apparently want to chalk up this interest to:

          antisemitism”

          I don’t recall mentioning antisemitism here.

          “So all these NGOs, because it’s not just one, are antisemitic? ”

          Again, you said it, not me.

          “The crimes are severe and real. You just want to create your own standard that absolves Israel while focusing on everyone else. Whereas these other NGOs, focus on everyone. And since, Israel is a ‘western’ type of country with all these ridiculous problems (COLONIALISM) it’s magnified.”

          No, I would mind less if Israel was focused on in proper proportion. I am not alone; Kofi Annan and Ban Ki-Moon both agree that a disproportionate amount of time is spent on Israel in the UNHRC.

          “And since, Israel is a ‘western’ type of country with all these ridiculous problems (COLONIALISM) it’s magnified.”

          So you agree that it’s fair to single it out?

          “If it weren’t a first-world/western type of country then the situation may not be as bad. ”

          So it’s OK for third-world countries in the East and South to violate human rights?

          “Your entire argument, just like most of your other arguments, are like that idiotic line we heard from Zionists on TV about how we’d attack Mexico if they were firing rockets at us for years.”

          Well, no not really. It’s more – if the UNHRC sent a team of investigators to investigate every military action by an army, particularly by the US in Afghanistan and Iraq, or by country for that matter, I bet there would be a lot more condemnatory report and that most of these countries would likewise not cooperate and reject them.

          “The only people who buy it are:

          other Zionists, who get progressively loonier, ranging from liberal- to Christian-
          Right-wingers
          PEP libs
          sell-outs(congressman, clergy, celebs, etc.)”

          Doesn’t matter who “buys” what. There is right and wrong. And singling out one country, according to me, Kofi Annan, and Ban Ki-Moon, is wrong.

          “People who can be bullied and bought out too of course. Your arguments are like the company you keep – MORALLY BANKRUPT.”

          You can’t handle morality on anything but the most rudimentary level. You only see the world in Black and White. Like George Bush, Jr.

        • Woody Tanaka says:

          “A report in which there is not one Israeli soldier witness. ”

          How many of them offered to meet with the commission? Oh, yeah, that’s right, none. Cowards.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      Bridges between Israel and New York U Jews.

      • Cliff says:

        LOL

        so true

        who are they talking to? themselves

        they are propagating the same nonsense to their younger audience to restock ammunition

        • hophmi says:

          “they are propagating the same nonsense to their younger audience to restock ammunition”

          Because when you hold pro-Palestinian events, most of the people who come are neophytes or pro-Israel people looking to hear an opposing POV. No, leftists NEVER preach to the choir.

        • Shingo says:

          We’ve already witnessed what IDF people have to say Hophmi. The lie and they justify mass murder, just like you for example.

      • Chu says:

        euphemism for international hasbara

  20. Surely to be consistent they must have a Palestinian or MM aid worker there to ‘balance’ the discussion. Otherwise it should be cancelled, no?

  21. sky7i says:

    Ken O’Keefe would be an ideal person to have here.

  22. ToivoS says:

    International law is usually quite limited in its reach but in the cases of piracy on the high seas there are 200 years of precedent so many Western governments agree on what piracy means. It applies not just to commanders of pirate vessels but their crews as well.

    There have been some successful cases in US courts applying piracy laws in the past 30 years. There must be some active lawyers that know this law. What a wonderful opportunity.

  23. Shingo says:

    They should send Kenneth O’Keefe along to debate this guy. The IDF quad probably won’t show up or wet himself when he sees him face to face.

    • Chu says:

      yeah, great. He could talk about how he disarmed 2 ‘navy seals’,
      as they wet their pants on the deck of the Mavi Marvara.

      This IDF soldier is probably one of them. It doesn’t seem likely they would send the ones who killed passengers, more like the bed-wetters.

      The world could use many more Ken O’Keefes.

    • fuster says:

      Shingo, you’re more likely to get wet from seeing O’Keefe than is the IDF guy.

  24. seafoid says:

    Hey, when is Israel peace week? The last one was, er, in 1947.

  25. Shingo says:

    Who else but Zionists would invite a murderer to speak at an even called “Israel Peace Week”??

    This is clearly a desperate move.

  26. hughsansom says:

    My prediction on this is that the NYU administration will try to come up with some excuse to shut down the Palestinian-sympathetic event while allowing the pro-war crimes event to proceed. (Standard excuses: Not the right permit; more people than allowed in space X; We’ll allow to reschedule at a different time – say 3 am Sunday of Spring Break;…)

  27. hophmi says:

    UPDATE:

    Just received this from the organizers:

    “Dear Attendees,

    Sadly, amid serious safety and security issues, Birthright Israel Next and other sponsors are being forced to cancel tomorrow night’s event at the Silver Center. I am deeply sorry. Gesher truly apologizes for this inconvenience, but looks forward to providing great opportunities throughout the course of the rest of the semester.

    Best,
    Nicole”

    So what do you have to say now? Looks like your side has been successful in shutting down speech.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      If your war criminal had nothing to fear, why didn’t he demand to show up and speak anyway? Cowardice?

      • hophmi says:

        “If your war criminal had nothing to fear, why didn’t he demand to show up and speak anyway? Cowardice?”

        I have no idea why the IDF soldier, who has not been convicted for anything nor indicted for anything, is not speaking other than the note I posted. If I am able to find out the reason for the cancellation, I will let you know.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          Let me guess – the people in the IDF who sent him recalled him because what they fear above all else is a precedent that would make their personnel liable for prosecution for their war crimes. In fact, this might have been a test.

      • lysias says:

        Some more people are learning that in the eyes of the world Israel is a pariah state.

    • ToivoS says:

      That is disappointing news. I was quite excited about seeing the application of international piracy laws in this case.

      But we can look forward to other possibilities in the future. Every Israeli in the chain — from lowly crew men to the officers and officials who planned the operation are possible suspects. And the many dozens of countries around the world that signed international piracy treaties will have jurisdiction.

    • Chu says:

      aww, they almost got away with it.
      The ziofrenzy has been canceled due
      to security concerns, not free speech.
      Nice try though.

      • hophmi says:

        If those security concerns amount to a threat by protesters to disrupt the talk, it’s tantamount to censoring speech.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          So, hophmi, when Norman Finkelstein’s lectures are cancelled, is that tantamount to censoring speech, too?

        • hophmi says:

          “So, hophmi, when Norman Finkelstein’s lectures are cancelled, is that tantamount to censoring speech, too?”

          If my side threatens to disrupt the proceedings so that the event can’t be held, yes. To my knowledge, Norman Finkelstein has had no shortage of public lectures.

        • andrew r says:

          On the other hand, NF has never appeared on US network TV – and no, DN! doesn’t count.

        • Shingo says:

          To my knowledge, Norman Finkelstein has had no shortage of public lectures.

          To my knowledge, Norman Finkelstein is an Amerian citizen and as such, has that right. This IDF murderer is not.

        • fuster says:

          Shingo

          anybody from the IDF that the US government allows to enter the US to speak has that right.

        • hophmi says:

          “To my knowledge, Norman Finkelstein is an Amerian citizen and as such, has that right. This IDF murderer is not.”

          In case you didn’t get the message, one does not have to be a citizen to exercise First Amendment rights. (For that matter, we’re not just talking about the soldier’s rights. We’re also talking about the rights of the organization presenting his lecture.)

          Or is it your assertion that illegal immigrants have no right to be heard because they’re not citizens?

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      Alright! Sometimes good truimphs over evil!

  28. eGuard says:

    What happened to the good old “balancing”? Why not an it’s-only-a-Turk invited?

    Even better, why not did that Israel Club think of a “balancing” Palestinian Peace Week?

  29. stevelaudig says:

    perfect opportunity to obtain service of process for civil litigation involving wrongful death of an American citizen.

  30. This isn’t about rights. Everyone, even the most repugnant among us, has the right to not have their speech abridged by the government. What this is about: Someone who (yes I’m making assumptions, though I believe they are educated assumptions) is going to lie, someone who is an apologist for and active participant in the murder of 9 civilians in international waters. It is a disgrace.

    Homphi and others keep talking as if we’re talking about two equal sides here. We aren’t. Please learn something about power dynamics.

    • hophmi says:

      “Someone who (yes I’m making assumptions, though I believe they are educated assumptions) is going to lie, someone who is an apologist for and active participant in the murder of 9 civilians in international waters. It is a disgrace. ”

      They’re just political assumptions. And the disgrace is that you think any of this would really fly outside of your own community.

  31. hophmi says:

    “What this is about: Someone who (yes I’m making assumptions, though I believe they are educated assumptions) is going to lie, someone who is an apologist for and active participant in the murder of 9 civilians in international waters. It is a disgrace. ”

    You haven’t heard a word he says. You’re just making bald assumptions. This kind of nonsense can be used to censor virtually anyone who speaks on a controversial issue.

    You people are making yourselves look bad.

    “Homphi and others keep talking as if we’re talking about two equal sides here. We aren’t. Please learn something about power dynamics.

    Please learn something about America. We don’t censor people because one represents a point of view that has more “power” than another.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      We don’t censor people because one represents a point of view that has more “power” than another.

      Unfortunately, it happens all the time. Most often these days when powerful rich Zionist Jews threaten to withdraw their support from some institution if they allow a non-Zionist point of view to be uttered.

      Or do you forget the porn king?

    • Shingo says:

       You haven’t heard a word he says. You’re just making bald assumptions.

      Yeah sure Hophmi. I’m sure he’ll surprise all of us and give a NRA culpable.

      <

      You people are making yourselves look bad.</

      You’re the one apologizing for a murderer.

      We don’t censor people because one represents a point of view that has more “power” than another.

      Yeah right Hophmi. Tell that to Tony Judd.

    • andrew r says:

      “We don’t censor people because one represents a point of view that has more “power” than another.”

      Well, no, it’s the less powerful views that get censored. That’s why no one has been able to appear on US network TV and explain the JNF colonization, peasant removal accompanying the settlement foundation, segregated economy of the British Mandate, nakba, refugees’ right of return or anything critical of Israel’s origins and the claim it’s a just outcome for Europe’s Jews.

      We don’t have to hear the Israeli soldier speak because he will not be able to form a paragraph of original hasbara. Personal anecdote + usual assortment of talking points = tedious and infuriating presentation.

      That’s beside the point, though. You don’t have a basic grasp on the concept of freedom of speech. The US govt. can’t intervene against any forum that gives you a voice. That doesn’t mean a forum must give you a voice. See the difference?

      • hophmi says:

        “Well, no, it’s the less powerful views that get censored. That’s why no one has been able to appear on US network TV and explain the JNF colonization, peasant removal accompanying the settlement foundation, segregated economy of the British Mandate, nakba, refugees’ right of return or anything critical of Israel’s origins and the claim it’s a just outcome for Europe’s Jews.”

        What, Democracy Now doesn’t count? It’s a radio program with millions of listeners. Stop acting like you don’t have a forum.

        “We don’t have to hear the Israeli soldier speak because he will not be able to form a paragraph of original hasbara. Personal anecdote + usual assortment of talking points = tedious and infuriating presentation. ”

        YOU may not want to hear him, but I assure you that OTHER PEOPLE DO. YOU don’t get to be the sole arbiter of truth and justice here. If you want to live in a society like that – move to China or Saudi Arabia.

        “That’s beside the point, though. You don’t have a basic grasp on the concept of freedom of speech. The US govt. can’t intervene against any forum that gives you a voice. That doesn’t mean a forum must give you a voice. See the difference?”

        I grasp it very well. I am aware that NYU could shut down the event and not technically offend the First Amendment. However, most private universities try to honor the spirit of the First Amendment by not censoring speech.

        • andrew r says:

          “What, Democracy Now doesn’t count? It’s a radio program with millions of listeners. Stop acting like you don’t have a forum. ”

          The keyword is NETWORK tv. DN! is only available via satellite. Basic cable doesn’t have it. Also, I haven’t watched DN! in a few years but when I did, they really didn’t do much to challenge the ‘safe haven’ narrative. They just reported on Israeli attacks on Palestinians and the political developments (ICJ ruling, et al). More than the mainstream media, but not necessarily anti-Zionist.

          P.S. Just remembered the debate with Norman Finkelstein and Benni Morris. DN! has a good record on the nakba.

          “YOU may not want to hear him, but I assure you that OTHER PEOPLE DO. YOU don’t get to be the sole arbiter of truth and justice here. If you want to live in a society like that – move to China or Saudi Arabia.”

          That’s very adorable. In China or Saudi Arabia, their equivalent of this guy would be the one and only voice available. Unfortunately for you, the right section of society decided they have no room for a mouthpiece for military killing of civilians. Anyone who wants to hear him can do so at their local J.

        • andrew r says:

          Saree Makdisi was also in the DN! debate mentioned above.

  32. ToivoS says:

    I think this is very good news. I believe they canceled because of legal liability. This means people like him cannot travel openly in the US and Europe. Israel uses its IDF vets to propagandize the west but now they will be hesitant to expose them to this danger. Just imagine if the side of justice managed to bag one of these thugs. The trial itself would be a great opportunity to expose Israel’s crimes to the world. Many weeks of front page publicity in the host country. Yes it would be a PR disaster for Israel. Israel is much better off isolating their citizen soldiers from international exposure lest they lose the PR war. We can chalk this one up to self imposed BDS by the Israelis themselves.

  33. deb83 says:

    Is this cancellation confirmed?

  34. thetumta says:

    While I won’t be surprised if this is just another Israeli “want to be” with a big story? Maybe, he is actually one of the murders of Furken? A 19 year old American boy shot twice in the back and executed with a head shot while lying on the deck! An unarmed child! Why is this criminal in this country? Who brought him here and what is to be done about it? Where is the Obama’s “Just Us” Department. Who here is going to be there? It’s short notice I know, but it pains me terribly that this criminal can come here and not feel threatened somehow. His sponsor’s as well. Well, Phil this is a tough one?
    Hej! Tumta

  35. “We don’t censor people because one represents a point of view that has more “power” than another”

    I’m talking about oppressor v. oppressed. You continually try to paint the picture as if there are two equal parties with competing yet equally valid narratives. That’s hogwash. One party is the victim, the other is the representative of the oppressor to an audience, and a participant in an attack that left 9 people murdered. Attempting to equate these narratives by giving them equal opportunity, one being the truth and one being a lie, one demanding justice and the other excusing murder, is wrong.

    Again, this isn’t a question of rights. It’s a question of morality. It is in my view immoral to afford this man the opportunity to lie, when his position of power will lend undue legitimacy to his words. As an IDF soldier, it is hardly unfair to say with near certainty that he is going to express the view point of the IDF and the government he has been sent to represent. The fact that his presentation was going to take place during “Israel Peace Week,” billed as an alternative to Israeli Apartheid Week further buttresses this assumption. If he were there to actually talk about what really happened on the Mavi Marmara, then his narrative would not fit with the event’s name.

    • hophmi says:

      “I’m talking about oppressor v. oppressed. ”

      Excuse me. Nobody is oppressing Turks here. The members of flotilla were not of the “oppressed.” And this oppressor versus oppressed stuff has nothing whatever to do with the right to free speech in America.

      “Again, this isn’t a question of rights. It’s a question of morality”

      It never is a question of rights when you’re denying them to someone else on the basis of your personal morality, is it?

      “It is in my view immoral to afford this man the opportunity to lie”

      Again, you have no idea who he is and what he is going to say. So you cannot claim to know he will “lie” and moreover, as an event on the politically controversial issue, what you think and feel about what he says really doesn’t make a difference.

      • Oppressor v oppressed in relation to 1) overall narrative and 2) i would absolutely call the members of the freedom flotilla the “oppressed” in this situation considering they are the victims, and are being completely and totally trashed at the hands of an Israeli PR offensive.

        “It never is a question of rights when you’re denying them to someone else on the basis of your personal morality, is it?”
        I think you’re missing my point on purpose. Let me clarify: I am not challenging his constitutional right to speak. I am challenging whether it is morally acceptable for him to speak, or for others to facilitate that speech.

        “Again, you have no idea who he is and what he is going to say. So you cannot claim to know he will “lie” ”
        Again, it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption given the fact that he is a representative of the IDF and GOI, both of which have a specific, static narrative on the subject. Furthermore, he is giving his speech in a forum that advocates orthodoxy with that narrative despite a concurrent and alternative venue (that being Israel Apartheid Week). It is thus safe to assume his words will fall in line with the hasbara and consequently I object to his speech.

        “what you think and feel about what he says really doesn’t make a difference.”
        There is a comment section on this site, soliciting the opinion of readers. Whether my opinion “makes a difference” or not, I felt compelled to share it. Also, the idea that “personal moral opinions” are based on some kind of mysticism/relativity hinges on the contention that morality is subjective, and that’s not a discussion I’m interested in getting into with you, but thanks anyway.

        • hophmi says:

          “Oppressor v oppressed in relation to 1) overall narrative and 2) i would absolutely call the members of the freedom flotilla the “oppressed” in this situation considering they are the victims, and are being completely and totally trashed at the hands of an Israeli PR offensive. ”

          Again, this is your opinion. It has nothing to do with whether an IDF soldier should be afforded a right to speak.

          “I think you’re missing my point on purpose. Let me clarify: I am not challenging his constitutional right to speak. I am challenging whether it is morally acceptable for him to speak, or for others to facilitate that speech. ”

          And again, your hypo leaves you as the moral arbiter. That is usually the problem with all attempts to limit speech – it boils down to a partisan person or group wanting to be the arbiter of morality.

          “Again, it’s a perfectly reasonable assumption given the fact that he is a representative of the IDF and GOI, both of which have a specific, static narrative on the subject. ”

          I think one could make a reasonable assumption about almost every speaker who appears on a college campus. That doesn’t mean we keep them from speaking.

          “Furthermore, he is giving his speech in a forum that advocates orthodoxy with that narrative despite a concurrent and alternative venue (that being Israel Apartheid Week). ”

          NYU is a forum that advocates orthodoxy? And again, what does this have to do with whether he should speak?

          “It is thus safe to assume his words will fall in line with the hasbara and consequently I object to his speech. ”

          Object you can. Censor you can’t.

          “There is a comment section on this site, soliciting the opinion of readers. Whether my opinion “makes a difference” or not, I felt compelled to share it. ”

          I meant it doesn’t make a difference with respect to the speech questions here. That’s the point, we don’t make speech rights subservient to the feelings of a few individuals.

          “Also, the idea that “personal moral opinions” are based on some kind of mysticism/relativity hinges on the contention that morality is subjective, and that’s not a discussion I’m interested in getting into with you, but thanks anyway.”

          Well, there’s really no need for a discussion. They’re your opinions, and by definition, they are subjective. If you’d like to live in a society where one view of morality is the law of the land, then Saudi Arabia’s your country.

        • Shingo says:

          Again, this is your opinion. It has nothing to do with whether an IDF soldier should be afforded a right to speak.

          He represents a terrorist organization and terrorist organizations are not allowed to speak.

          And again, your hypo leaves you as the moral arbiter. That is usually the problem with all attempts to limit speech – it boils down to a partisan person or group wanting to be the arbiter of morality.

          When a representative of Hamas or Hezbollah is allowed to speak in teh US, then you’ll have a argument.

          And again, what does this have to do with whether he should speak?

          When a representative of Hamas or Hezbollah is allowed to speak in teh US, then you’ll have a argument.

          Object you can. Censor you can’t.

          When a representative of Hamas or Hezbollah is allowed to speak in teh US, then you’ll have a argument.

          If you’d like to live in a society where one view of morality is the law of the land, then Saudi Arabia’s your country.

          When a representative of Hamas or Hezbollah is allowed to speak in teh US, then you’ll have a argument.

        • hophmi says:

          “He represents a terrorist organization and terrorist organizations are not allowed to speak.”

          Blah, blah, blah, blather, blather, blather. The IDF is not a terrorist organization and not been declared as such by the State Department.

          “When a representative of Hamas or Hezbollah is allowed to speak in teh US, then you’ll have a argument.”

          They do, if they’re here. And in fact, member of the Muslim Brotherhood and groups more radical than that have certainly spoken in the US.

        • Shingo says:

          The IDF is not a terrorist organization and not been declared as such by the State Department.

          That doesn’t mean it’s not a terrorist organization.

          They do, if they’re here.

          No one from Hezbollah has ever spoken in the US.

          And in fact, member of the Muslim Brotherhood and groups more radical than that have certainly spoken in the US.

          False.

  36. The point about censorship (from whatever perspective) is that people have a right to hear.

    Intelligent people in a democracy have a hunger and a responsibility to hear differing perspectives.

    Some will use those differing perspectives to form rational conclusions. Some will use whatever information they receive only as ammunition.

    The need to hear, rather than isolation, remain.

    The responses here, and apparent threats issued by someone to either disrupt the event or some prospect or direct threat of violence, frankly demonstrate the suppressive and propagandistic intent of academic BDS.

    • Shingo says:

      The responses here, and apparent threats issued by someone to either disrupt the event or some prospect or direct threat of violence, frankly demonstrate the suppressive and propagandistic intent of academic BDS.

      We get it Witty. You can stand the taste of your own medicine.

  37. jon s says:

    Maggielorraine,
    Were you there? The IDF soldier was. Maybe his testimony is worth hearing.

    • Woody Tanaka says:

      “The IDF soldier was. Maybe his testimony is worth hearing.”

      Then he should submit himself to Palestinian civilian trial and he can give his testimony before a judge, where it is appropriate.

      • eljay says:

        >> Then he should submit himself to Palestinian civilian trial and he can give his testimony before a judge, where it is appropriate.

        Trials are only appropriate if you’re one of “them”. If you’re one of “us” and you kill one of “them”, you get to write a book and charge good money for speaking engagements.

        Ain’t Western-style justice grand?! It’s no wonder they hate us for our freedoms…

      • hophmi says:

        Yeah, whatever. The Palestinians wouldn’t have jurisdiction to try them in the first place.

        • fuster says:

          hey, don’t turn your nose up at those Palestinian trials.

          terrorists get a couple of weeks or months of loose arrest and then they’re out the back door.
          of course, people who criticize the Palestinian political system get beaten to a pulp and stay in prison far longer, but murder or mayhem against people that the Palestinian courts and their masters don’t care about isn’t gonna result in much of a penalty.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          That’s the problem, isn’t it, hophmi.

        • Shingo says:

          The Palestinians wouldn’t have jurisdiction to try them in the first place.

          Because as Israeli leaders have told us, no one has the right to judge Israel, though Israel has the right to judge everyone else.

    • Shingo says:

      Maybe his testimony is worth hearing.

      Based on the BS we’ve heard from pervious IDF speakers, it’s safe to assume it won’t be,