After reading many of your comments as well as having an internal dialogue within UNC SJP, the executive team would like to issue another statement in light of everything that has occurred post-cancellation:
First, we want to thank those who took the time to respectfully post their thoughts and feelings about our difficult decision to cancel Rania’s talk. Whether you supported our decision or not, we appreciate those posts that sought to open discussion — about free speech, censorship, and bullying, among other things. This experience has taught us a great deal. In terms of effective communication, we were extremely disappointed with the level of animus and name-calling that has the effect of undermining one’s credibility; needless to say it does very little (if anything) to engage people in constructive dialogue. We want to emphasize that we were not at all persuaded by those who appear to have a vendetta against Rania, who want to undermine her journalistic work and who have made it their job to harass and malign her–we strongly condemn their tactics and their smears.
What we were faced with, however, was a situation in which many people we respect and trust politically and personally had varying views on the topic of Rania speaking at UNC-CH. For example, several members of SJP chapters throughout the US, some Arab and non-Arab scholars of the Middle East, and many Palestine solidarity activists encouraged us to cancel. As can be seen from the reactions and comments over the past few weeks, there are fierce disagreements about Rania’s political perspectives in relation to the ongoing crisis in Syria among those who consider themselves pro-Palestine activists. As an organization with very limited funds and therefore limited opportunities to foreground issues related directly to the Palestinian struggle, concerned about the feedback we received from our supporters on campus and in the local community who weighed in on the issue, we decided to cancel.
As for the allegations of “blacklisting,” UNC SJP would not stop Rania from speaking if she were invited by another organization/department on campus, and we believe that she should be allowed to speak freely. We did not seek to revoke that right, but rather to avoid involving UNC SJP in an issue in which it has no authority.
Editor’s Note: For background see this previous post here.
You did the right thing in cancelling. She and Norton and Blumenthal spend all their time searching for Islamists and slandering all opposition to Assad as “al-Qaeda” linked. On Russia Today she said the White Helmets were a “PR firm”. Revolutionary democratic forces in Syria have all kinds of enemies from Assad to ISIS to Al-Qaeda to Salafi groups, not to speak of the Russian, Iran, the Saudis and the U.S. Instead of trying to help them she gives a slightly more sophisticated version of the Assadist line.
Idrees Ahmad one of the opposition to Rania Khalek, is a supporter of regime change in Syria, of course the replacement for Assad would be the Wahhabi head choppers who want all religeous minorities driven out of Syria, including the majority Sunni community who disagree with their barbaric rule. Here is an excellent Counterpunch article from Rick Sterling about this phoney revolutionary “Ahmad outdoes himself in the charge for war by claiming “Russian actions in Syria are an act of aggression against the country’s beleaguered people.” In contrast with his fantasy, virtually the entire Syrian population are hugely relieved and happy that Russia has started providing air support, modern laser guided weapons and satellite information to help reverse the tide.
Those seeking direct US/NATO intervention in Syria describe the conflict as “weak Obama vs strong Putin”. They are unhappy and critical because the proxy army has failed to overthrow the Syrian government. They want direct invasion even if it risks world war. It’s a very dangerous and deluded mindset. Above all it profoundly ignores or distorts the wishes of the Syrian people who have consistently and increasingly made clear they do not support the violent opposition. Two years ago a poll commissioned by NATO revealed that 70% of the population supports the government”. http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/10/21/faulty-analysis-and-conclusions-on-syria/
The people who decided to cancel the speech by Rania Khalek should be ashamed of themselves, by listening to voices mainly in support of regime change in Syria and who support some of the most sectarian elements in the Middle East, they have stifled a valuable contribution to the debate.
Another Phoney Oz Katerji of the Turkish State Broadcaster TRT World is one of “A tightly-knit network of Syrian regime change activists has composed a de facto blacklist of those who have refused to toe their ruthlessly enforced, hyper-sectarian ideological line,” journalist Max Blumenthal wrote. “Their goal is to deny the message by destroying the messenger.”
According to Blumenthal, who has also had his professional career targeted by Katerji, he has “worked enthusiastically with Israeli aid organizations and demonized leading Palestine solidarity activists as anti-Semites, including the founder of Electronic Intifada. He freely admits that a Canary Mission-style campaign is being organized to silence ideological foes like Rania”. https://shadowproof.com/2017/02/27/advocates-syrian-rebels-convince-student-group-cancel-event-journalist-rania-khalek/.”
Rania was born in Lebanon I think. Were her parents Palestinian refugees?
All this garbage linking opposition to Assad as “hasbara”. Aren’t you aware that Hamas supported the rebels in East Aleppo?
—
Hamas, a Sunni fundamentalist movement, has always differed from Iran on the Syrian civil war. Hamas sympathizes with the Syrian rebels in their revolt against the regime of President Bashar al-Assad — who is Iran’s main ally in the region. Yet Iran has supported Hamas financially in the Palestinian struggle against Israel.
The balance was already precarious and the tipping point came in mid-December with the deaths and displacement of thousands of Aleppo inhabitants due to Syrian and Russian shelling and operations by Iran and Hezbollah. On Dec. 14, Hamas issued a scathing statement condemning the “genocide” of Syrian citizens, but without naming the Syrian government. Hamas called for immediate action to halt the massacres in Aleppo and rescue those civilians still alive.
Iran’s response to Hamas’ statement was equally strong.
Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, a member of the Iranian parliament’s Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, told the conservative Ghanoun newspaper Dec. 22 that Hamas has long been estranged from Iran over the Syrian situation. Falahatpisheh accused Hamas leaders of unspecified aggression against Iran and threatened to halt any dealings with Hamas and to engage in new relations with other Palestinian movements.
Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/12/hamas-iran-relations-aleppo-condemn.html