Home » Features » Currently Reading:

Students for Justice Host Member of Irvine 11

February 21, 2012 Features 1 Comment
UCI2011-400x280

By: Lucas Reed
Writer

MultiCultural Center members of Students for Justice in Palestine held an informative panel presentation to discuss the Irvine 11 and the political and social implications of their arrest on Tuesday, Feb. 14. The panel speakers included Taher Herzallah, one of the Irvine 11 from University of California Riverside, and Dr. Robert I. Robinson, professor of sociology at University of California Santa Barbara. The Irvine 11 was a group of eight University of California Irvine students and three UCR students who protested against an academic presentation at UCI with United States Ambassador to Israel Michael Oren as the keynote speaker.

Oren’s position of power, his prior involvement as a paratrooper with the Israel Defense Forces in 1982 that resulted in the mass murder of Lebanese and his previous involvement as the spokesman for the IDF during the Gaza massacre made him a controversial figure to Palestinian sympathizers.
During Oren’s speech, members of the Irvine 11 individually interrupted, voicing their distaste for the ambassador claiming he was guilty of great injustices and promoted genocide. As the protest was peaceful, each student said their piece, walked to the aisle and allowed police to escort them from the building. The method of protest received strong negative criticisms from the University and the judicial court.

“Michael Oren is a trained propagandist,” said Taher in defense to the protest. “Michael Oren was directly involved in the Gaza Massacre… For me a protest is standing up, getting in somebody’s face and telling it how it is.”
Zionist groups convinced Mark Yudof, president of the University of California system, to pressure the chancellors of UCR and UCI to suspend Muslim Student Unions at their universities for a year. The District Attorney charged the Irvine 11 with disruption of a public event and conspiracy to disrupt a public event, which resulted in community service and a fine.
“People don’t want you to talk about what really happens in Israel. They will try their best to shut you down. You have to fight back as hard as possible,” said Yudof.

In 2009 the Israel Lobby targeted professors of California universities who spoke out against Israeli crimes. Robinson was a target for denouncing the Israeli massacre in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, and nearly ran off campus for being an activist against the injustices in Israel. Robinson gave a brief explanation of the development of the Israeli economy and its shift from a traditional agricultural economy to a technology based economy with special interests in counter-terrorist products and military goods.

“The more warfare there is, the more conflict there is, the better it is for Israeli economy,” said Robinson. “The Israeli economy feeds off local, regional and global violence conflicts and inequalities. Its largest corporations now sponsor war and conflict just as the U.S. does.”

Dr. Robinson voiced his views against recent acts taken by Israel officials that promote ethnic cleansing and social inequalities aimed at the Palestinians. Dr. Robinson described a picture of Israeli colonialism, the early warning indicators of possible future genocide to come, and the similarities between recent Israel actions that promote social inequalities to the early actions of the German Nazi Party. He further explained that the mission to gain legitimacy for Israel’s recent policies is failing and in response a “farce New Anti-Semitism” is forming. While “old Anti-Semitism” still exists and people still harbor hateful prejudices against the Jewish culture, “New Anti-Semitism” is a tactic used by officials against critics of Israeli policies.

“If you criticize Israeli policies you are an Anti-Semitic,” said Dr. Robinson.
The general consensus of the panel discussion is that the fear of being labeled an Anti-Semitist and the fear of opposing western ideology is ultimately taking away a person’s freedom to protest, thus taking away a person’s freedom to speak out for what they feel is morally right. Still students like the Irvine 11 will continue to speak out if they truly believe in the cause.

“My people are being killed, my people are being oppressed, I’m going to do everything I can do to stop this,” said Herzallah. “I’m not going to follow a form of protest that fits the status quo that allows my people to be oppressed.”
Taher Herzallah and the rest of the Irvine 11 continue to fight as they challenge their conviction through the appeal process.

Currently there is "1 comment" on this Article:

  1. J.K. says:

    People have the right to speak out on express their opinions at UC Irvine. The MSU has had many events where they have invited speakers to speak on the campus to share their perspective.

    The actions the Irvine 11 students engaged in was not protected rights of free speech. The students were wrong to prevent Oren from being heard. They are not civil rights heroes. They were rude and violated the rights of others. That should not be celebrated.

    Next time please protest outside the event and let people who took time out of their day to go to the lecture hear the lecture. Some people attending may have disagreed with the speaker but wanted to hear the lecture to see for themselves what the speaker had to say so they could have more conviction in their own opinions.

    I thought the punishment the Univiersity imposed on the students was enough.

    Just because the DA was wrong to prosecute the students criminally, it does not excuse the students boorish behavior. The students plan and action to shutdown the lecture and prevent Oren from saying whatever he wanted to say on the campus was wrong. Period.

    “Freedom of speech, on campuses and elsewhere, is rendered meaningless if speakers can be shouted down by those who disagree. The law is well established that the government can act to prevent a heckler’s veto — to prevent the reaction of the audience from silencing the speaker. There is simply no 1st Amendment right to go into an auditorium and prevent a speaker from being heard, no matter who the speaker is or how strongly one disagrees with his or her message.

    The remedy for those who disagreed with the ambassador was to engage in speech of their own, but in a way that was not disruptive. They could have handed out leaflets, stood with picket signs, spoken during the question-and-answer session, held a demonstration elsewhere on campus or invited their own speakers.”

    – Dean of UC Irvine Law School – Erwin Chemerinsky

Comment on this Article:







Twitter Feed

Arts & Entertainment

Stormy SoundClouds Gather on the Music Streaming Horizon

22 Oct 2014

8900627206_663826571c_b

Stephany Jones What first began as a small startup company in Berlin by two Swedish music enthusiasts back in 2007 has since exploded into a company valued at $700 million dollars and has become a new platform for up and coming artists. With over 250 million users, SoundCloud has become …

Barely Alive from New York, It’s Saturday Night!

22 Oct 2014

Luis SNL

Shomik Mukherjee Illustration by Luis Bondoc, Staff Illustrator When great things come to fall, as they always inevitably do, it presents us an opportunity to dissect the remains, and wonder about what went wrong. Personally, I’ve always found this vulture-like behavior agitating; not all demises warrant explanation, and some things …