Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert struggled to make himself heard over a cacophony of protests in Mandel Hall Thursday, in what became more of a free-for-all than an international policy lecture.
Dozens of protesters inside the auditorium, and over 100 more outside, voiced their fury at alleged war crimes committed by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza during Olmert’s tenure. Meanwhile, Olmert articulated a two-state plan for peace in the Middle East, which has Israel sacrificing nearly all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights land occupied since the Six Day War in 1967.
The scheduled running time for Olmert’s remarks was 20 minutes, but ran nearly an hour-and-a-half after a series of false starts. Shouting from the audience dominated the event from the beginning, and ranged from the extreme to the absurd.
“You deserve to be executed!” shouted one protester. “Your face is ugly!” yelled another.
“I understand these emotions. There is the same rage from voices on the right in Israel,” Olmert said, referring to those who criticized his moderate party for giving concessions to Palestinian negotiators.
The lecture was part of the King Abdullah II Leadership Lecture series organized by the Harris School of Public Policy. Some protesters raised concerns that using the King of Jordan’s grant money to fund the lecture was a slap in the face to the Arab world.
Olmert’s remarks, fragmented and often inaudible, centered around a four-point peace plan he supported towards the end of his tenure as prime minister.
Olmert’s plan called for Israel to give the Palestinians land in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that it occupied after the 1967 war, and for Jerusalem to be split into an eastern Palestinian portion and a western Israeli portion. Further, he advocated that the ancient religious sites in the Old City area of Jerusalem be administered by an international coalition, and Palestinian refugees be provided with resources to start new lives in Palestine.
“We have to make a choice of what we want. Do we want to fight these people forever, or do we want to make peace?” Olmert asked. “If people shouted less, we could have done great things.”
U of C student organizations, including the Muslim Students Association, Students for Justice in Palestine, and groups from the University of Illinois-Chicago (UIC) and Northwestern came to protest the talk.
Approximately 200 protesters gathered across from the Reynolds Club on 57th Street to denounce Olmert’s speech. The crowd waved large Palestinian flags and banners emblazoned with Olmert’s face and the phrase “war criminal.” Organizers with megaphones led the assembled crowd in chants of “Free, free Palestine,” “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and “No Justice, No Peace.”
The crowd cooperated without complaint as police requested they stay on the curb. While loud, the crowd did not threaten violence.
Across the street on University Avenue, a group of six counter-protesters held up signs reading, among other things, “Let Israel Live in Peace.”
Inside the auditorium, Olmert faced more abrasive criticism.
“You’re a fucking snake! You goddamn pig!” shouted one heckler as police dragged him from Mandel Hall.
Olmert drew some of the most vehement responses when he asserted Israel’s right to be the Jewish homeland.
“Jerusalem was never not Jewish,” Olmert said. “This is where the Jewish people were born thousands of years ago. I think if you dig in the ground you will not find a single trace of the Palestinian people.”
Characterizing the offer he made Palestinian negotiators in 2008 as “unprecedented,” Olmert saw Palestinian refusal of those terms as a critical failure of their leadership.
“They will not find any prime minister in 100 years who will offer what I did,” Olmert said.
Security at the talk was strict; all audience members were screened through a metal detector, and some were frisked. Dozens of UCPD, CPD, and Secret Service agents, as well as Israeli Mossad agents, monitored both the inside and outside of the auditorium.
The tension frequently broke into physical confrontation as police forcibly escorted protesters out of the auditorium.
At one point, a heckler was confronted by a plainclothes officer in the same row, and asked to leave. After a heated exchange between the two, the officer put the protester in a headlock, tackling him into the seats. Nearby audience members stood and attempted to break up the two, and someone shouted that that the protester was “assaulting a police officer.”
One unidentified protester was arrested for criminal trespassing, according to deputy UCPD police chief John Doty.
In a question-and-answer session after Olmert’s remarks, the former prime minister was asked about former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, who gave a speech in Mandel Hall Tuesday. Bolton recommended the Israeli government attack Iran “as soon as possible,” the questioner said, in response to Iran’s possible nuclear weapons program.
“He means well,” said Olmert, smiling.
-—Additional reporting by Nathalie Gorman
He didn’t deserve the time of day. However, the “unwelcome” he received was outstanding! I wish I was there!!! (In Florida) I’m glad so many people stood up for what they believed in. As for his comment about Jerusalem not having trace of Palestinians… That’s the kind of hype and propaganda that they have been spreading since their inception in 1948. Are you kidding me?? Palestinians can trace their lineage in Palestine hundreds even thousands of years before you find any trace of most “Israelis” there now. European immigrants sure take a lot of claim to that land, if they did their fact checking, Jerusalem was barely Jewish, their rule didn’t last more than about 40 years, sandwiched in between many many years of Arabs and Muslims dominating that area. It’s obnoxious how history is twisted. Anyway, good job students, let’s hope he learns that he’s not welcome anywhere.
Dozens of people took risks including the risk of arrest, and this article makes it appear as if the protestors inside the hall wanted simply to hurl invective at Ehud Olmert. This is not journalism.
This is a garbage article.
I was in there. Almost EVERY SINGLE PERSON who interrupted him shouted out that he was a war criminal (bc of the Goldstone Report, this seems fair enough).
They were amazingly organized, interrupting his speech every 3 minutes, telling him he has no right to speak when he is responsible for the deaths of thousands, and the imprisonment of millions.
It was disgusting how people in the audience were so willing to rat out the students who came to protest. Audience members would shout at the cops to arrest so and so.
Really, the Harris School should be ashamed of itself for inviting this lame duck idiot and embarassing us. The protests were on Al-Jazeera round the clock today, and there is footage from inside the hall. I hope King Idiot of Jordan sees what he funded.
“has Israel sacrificing nearly all of the [...] land occupied by Israel since the Six Day War in 1967″
Key words there being ‘sacrificing’ and ‘nearly’. Land remaining occupied as a result of war has not been legal under international law since before 1967 (besides being a violation of the right to self-determination). There’s no sacrifice in doing what you are legally and morally required to do. And that little word ‘nearly’? Let’s think about what that means. Namely, not all.
Relatedly, “give the Palestinians land in the West Bank and Gaza” is missing the words ‘all of the’.
Finally, agreed with the second comment. This ridiculous rhetoric of Jewish existence in that land being of any greater antiquity or any greater numbers than any of its other inhabitants really needs to stop. It’s never been true, it never will
be, and it just reveals the racism, chauvinism, and ignorance of those who make the claim.
I attended Olmert’s (attempt at a) speech and the protestors desired nothing other than the opportunity to hurl invective at the prime minister; their nonstop yelling of expletives proves this. To justify their obstreperous behavior merely because it involved some “risk” is baffling. On that vein, I fail to see the “risk” these people were taking in the first place. Believe it or not, it is entirely possibly to make your opinions known in a way that neither requires arrest, is disrespectful to a guest at as well as the purportedly civilized culture of the University, nor disrupts those who are there to listen and learn. Rather than screaming obscenities, it would have been refreshing to see these students use the question cards that were distributed to engage in a thoughtful, factual, intelligence- not emotion-based dialogue with Mr. Olmert. But instead, they made a conscious and obviously coordinated choice to act as they did knowing exactly how it would end. It quickly became obvious to those in attendance that these students in fact thrived off of the disciplinary action meted out to them as a consequence of their out of control behavior: they were not there to listen but to become martyrs for Palestine in the only way they knew how.
While I entered the lecture willing to give those with opposing viewpoints the benefit of the doubt, optimistic that they would show some deference to Mr. Olmert as well as to their fellow audience members, within the first fifteen seconds it was abundantly clear that such a charitable approach was naively delusional. Not only are these individuals an embarrassment to the University of Chicago, themselves, and their cause, but their outrageous actions simultaneously demonstrate why the Middle East is how it is, and will continue to be this way without a sane and genuinely TWO-sided desire for resolution. Just as this two-sided desire was missing in Mandel Hall last night, thousands of miles away from the heart of the conflict, so too is it missing throughout the Middle East.
And Nihaya, talk about twisted history – if Jerusalem is such an integral part of the “Palestinian” and Muslim identity (the former of which is a concept that arose, quite strategically, only after 1948), why isn’t it mentioned anywhere in the Koran? It appears over 600 times in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, despite continuous Arab efforts to literally destroy all traces of the Jews’ connection to the city, the archeological record unquestionably establishes the Jewish peoples’ historical presence in Jerusalem as well as the rest of Israel. To deny this or to assert that Jerusalem is “barely Jewish” is utterly absurd.
So glad he was shown how unwelcomed he was–wish i was there (Minnesota).
Ahmadinejad got more respect at columbia. Complete embarrassment for the University. Its one thing to reject everything that someone says, and its another thing to not let them talk.
America please wake up. People like Olmert are using us to fund their war crimes. Did you know that Olmert stole money from American business? And that his own country has charges of fraud against him? Even so, that is small in comparison to his horrific war crimes. That isn’t according to me, that’s according to the UN. I cant believe this university invited a WAR CRIMINAL to speak on PEACE. Talk about a slap in the face to all the people who stand up for human rights and justice. He doesn’t deserve to be heard at all. SHAME ON YOU UofC. SHAME ON YOU HARRIS SCHOOL OF INDECENCY. The man bombed a university, hospitals, schools, mosques. War crimes are not free expression!
The man is also a liar. He said no Israeli extremist wants to kill Palestinians but that Palestinians are always killing innocent Israelis. First off, compare the death totals from the two sides. It’s a 100:1 ratio. Is that justice? Also, there’ve been cases where Israelis go into mosques and whatnot and shoot up innocents.
Finally, the comment about no trace of Palestinian history in Israel, only Jewish history. Well, if you go digging in Chicago and other areas of the US, you’ll find plenty of Native American History. According to Olmert’s argument, we should give this land back to the Indians. Right?
Finally, there was one part when he said that Israelis have a right to defend their children and destroy anyone who tries to harm them, as Obama agreed with. I also agree with that. but it made the Palestinians seem inhuman. Do they not have children they care about? that they would like to protect? Believe it or not, Palestinians are humans too. Again, please look at the death ratio.
I pray for the Palestinian people and that my fellow Americans wake up and stand up for human rights and justice.
The hecklers’ shouting “ranged from the extreme to the absurd”?
When will the Maroon contain unbiased journalism that is worth reading? The protestor’s reactions to Olmert’s disgusting lies regarding efforts for peace were raw, passionate, and inevitable. These were people who witnessed family members being slaughtered, while the rest of the world turned away in ignorance.
Olmert blamed the horrific violence in Gaza on Palestinians, and went so far to argue that Hamas threw babies out of hospital windows. So it makes sense that one heckler continued to fight back while he was put in a head-lock. Being scolded by the police and cowardly audience members was a meaningless slap on the wrist if it meant being heard on this campus. The bogus Q&A session that followed Olmert’s speech obviously wouldn’t address the real concerns of Palestinians, nor would it challenge Olmert in any possible way.
MEREDYTH, inviting Olmert to speak is rewarding racism, fascism, and zionism. This man murdered thousands of innocent women and children, and displaced hundreds of thousands, if not millions, from their homes.
Oh, I guess the protesters shouldve asked questions. Let him spew his venomous lies first, then ask some TOUGH questions, right? Ya, and since he isn’t a politician, which he is, he wont avoid the questions and change the topic completely right? You’re so smart. You should become some pro protest consultant or something.
And can you guarantee the questions wouldnt be screened? they were written and read before submitting them to the moderator. i dunno, it seemed like the couple that were asked were pretty easy and actually helped Olmert spew more venomous lies.
The Maroon is an embarrassment of a college newspaper. Good coverage would require a more accurate picture of what was going on inside that hall. I echo the sentiments that the people interrupting his speech were not just yelling insults and expletives but rather had meaningful messages to say, denouncing him as a war criminal and reminding both him and the audience of of people who died because of his actions.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10834.shtml
That has a video of the event, might provide a more clear picture of what actually happened.
Video from inside the venue shows that the protestors were not just foulmouthed angry youth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgN02ZTe5AU
Meredyth, I’m sure as you attended you barely kept an open mind considering everything you just stated. To go to your argument of arab vs jewish identity, lets go back to how long Jews ruled and how long the others did. Pales in comparison, I’m not saying there was no history of Jews there… but the ones laying claim to it in the last 60 years certainly had no ties… None better than the natives of the land that were there under the Ottoman empire for about 500 years. And thats just their recent history. And funny how you said about the Muslim identity coming only after 1948…. shows how ignorant you are. Does Salah el Din ring a bell to you? WAY before 1948. And again, only one of many Muslim influences. I don’t care how many times the bible names Jerusalem, that doesnt give anyone the right to STEAL the land. God’s not a real estate agent. By the way, the Quran does mention Jerusalem anyway, it referred to as the holy land… it doesnt have to mention it by name to your standards. Oh yea.. and how many different copies of the bible are there? How many times has it been changed? Yea, don’t even bring that up. If Jews truly believed in their book (Torah) they are not to have a land until their Messiah returns. If they believe he returned then they are Christian and that defeats the purpose of their argument. Read a book, a real one.
I thought the coverage of the event itself appeared fairly balanced but I wasn’t there. I can’t see the words “extreme to absurd” as particularly biased when referring to people saying things like “fucking bastard” (extreme) and “you’re face is ugly” (absurd). Upon reading the posts of others, it seems like there may be a case made that the voices of protesters were not adequately represented in the piece, but I wasn’t there…
I have two bigger questions/concerns.
First of all, where were the protesters at the Bolton gig on Wednesday? Here is a guy that says we should attack any and every country that we think might be a threat (esp. Iran) and is proposing a much more radically pro-Israel “three state solution” to the IP conflict than Olmert?
Shame on you U of C undergrads for not speaking out against this frightening monster.
Second, echoing Kathryn’s concerns, the problem I had with the reporting was the lack of historical perspective of the author. I’m not sure if this is because Frank is “drinking the Koolaid” or if it is simply a case that Frank has been swayed by the convincing rhetoric and framing of the Israeli Lobby. Note Frank’s characterization:
“Meanwhile, Olmert articulated a two-state plan for peace in the Middle East, which has Israel sacrificing nearly all of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Golan Heights land occupied since the Six Day War in 1967.”
While I agree that this is a much more moderate plan than what we would hear from just about any other Israeli former Prime Minister, this framing has got it all wrong. It is simply wrong to characterize the return of lands as a “sacrifice”. “Sacrifice” suggests that Palestinians should be grateful to the Israelis for the “sacrifice” that Israeli Jews are making. That’s like saying that Kuwaitis should be grateful that Saddam Hussein “sacrificed” the land that Iraq had “occupied” during the first Gulf War (and no I’m not making a strong parallel between Iraq and Israel, the parallel is intended only superficially).
Remember this is an “occupation” (and if it was the US, we would most likely call it an “invasion”). And just to be clear, it is the Israelis who are occupying the land agreed upon in the agreements of 1967 (I sometimes get the impression that some young folk think that it is the Palestinians who are simply “occupying” the land of the Israeli Jews and that the Palestinians should be grateful in being allowed to live there at all!).
I think that it is forgivable if Frank is simply ignorant of history and doesn’t know this context. The Israel Lobby’s framing of the problem is hegemonic and it appears to most people as common sense. But if this wording was a conscious and intended choice, then shame on you indeed. Does Burke Frank care to reply?
At the least, I admire your chutzpah for taking on such a divisive reporting assigment.
Burke,
Honestly, this article is best suited in the “Opinions” section. Not “news”. Sorry.
Some of the more glaring errors:
1. 200 students from universities at a minimum of one hour transportation time away camme to Hyde Park to express their discontent for an event our administration put together. You neglected in your article to emphasize the significance of such large and unprecedented mobilization of students in the greater Chicago-land area.
2. As the video and audio evidence shows, the great majority of the statements from the crowd were in fact not as you described. of the approximately 30 people who stood up and spoke in the auditorium you posted 2 comments, what about the other 28? After watching the video and audio of the event, do you now redact your statements from the article? Maybe bring those tapes to the next maroon meeting, perhaps you can help bring back some integrity to a student newspaper that has quickly begun losing it’s credibility as an honest, objective student news source.
Great job. This war criminal should never have been given a platform to spout zionist lies, and those who stood up to him should be applauded. If there was any justice he would be in prison for life.
Free Palestine. Long live Palestine.
While I certainly disagree with many of former Prime Minister Olmert’s views and positions, including some of the claims that he made during the speech, I was really embarrassed by the incivility of my peers. Rabidly screaming obscenities at a former head of state is unbecoming of University of Chicago students.
During last year’s Gaza “panel,” many people (including myself) who vehemently disagreed with many of the claims of the speakers, chose to express our disagreement in a civil, yet strong manner in the question and answer section of the panel. We let Mearsheimer, Finkelstein, and Abunimah make their statements, many of which were hurtful and offensive, without organizing disruptive and childish obstructions. I really wish those who attended the speech out of a desire to protest had extended the same courtesy to Mr. Olmert..
I would hope that a liberal arts education would have taught us to be willing to sit at the table with those whom we disagree the most. However, either through the fault of the admissions committee, the curriculum, or the students themselves, I can no longer assume this about my peers.
I believe in the right for the Palestinians to have their own state and live freely and safely. However, I also believe in the right for Israelis to have their own state and live freely and safely. If this view cannot be expressed in a public forum, at a university nonetheless, without crowds of hecklers maniacally shouting it down, I fear that this dream might never be realized.
Danya, that is just ridiculous! There is an ENORMOUS difference between Olmert and those 3 speakers you mentioned: ONE OF THEM IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF OVER A THOUSAND PEOPLE!! OLMERT IS BEING CHARGED FOR THESE WAR CRIMES IN INTERNATIONAL COURT! You cannot compare the three at all, and that is just incredibly stupid to think so. The reaction that Olmert got was the same that ANY war criminal should have gotten, whether it was Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, Hitler, etc etc. So before you attempt to think that your way of reacting to the speakers of the Gaza event was ‘civilized’, consider this.
Abunimah, Finkelstein and Mearsheimer, did NOT murder men, women and children in cold blood, bomb them and let them die under the rubble of their own homes, and bomb universities and schools.
Olmert DID do all those things.
That is why the students protested his speech. War criminals should be given no quarter, let alone one at a LIBERAL institution that respects people’s right to a LIFE just as much as it should respect people’s right to free SPEECH.
The students were doing the minimum they could do to express the voices of all those people Olmert SILENCED with BOMBS, TANKS and PHOSPHOROUS fumes.
Why not focus on the type of solution offered by Judah Magnes (backed by and Martin Buber), at the UN in 1947, when he proposed a Bi-Natiinal State? Some variation of that, or a Condominium or Conferation or One-State (such as with thoughtful, built-in regional, decentralization), could bring fruition to both peoples and prosperity to the area. Why not bring that to the attention of Olmert, Abu Mazen, and even Netanyahu, and the leader of Iran?
Howard Cort, howard@empireone.net, http//www.approachestocoexistence.com
To HD Grad Student:
The Egyptians had the Gaza Strip, the Jordanins the West Bank and the Syria the Golan Heights for 19 years since the State of Israel was founded in 1948. That didn’t stop Arab jihadists and these Arab countries from launching attacks against Israeli civilians day in and day out.
Let’s call a spade a spade, the Arabs (that hate Israel) want nothing less than the complete destruction of the State of Israel, as Arafat said from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
Israel has no choice but to fight for its survival and fight they shall.
If the Arab nations really cared about the Palestinians they would allow the refugees in their countries to become citizens. They don’t for one reason, they would lose the reason to hate Israel. Instead they treat them as third class citizens with little opportunity for employment, no voting rights and other abuses. An illegal immigrant in the USA has a better life than a Palestinian born in Egypt. (So much for love)
The fact is that Arab-Israelis have a better life, more freedom and a higher education than most of their Arab counterparts in other Arab countries. The Palestinians were better off under Israeli rule than under Fatah or Hamas. As Abba Eban famously said: the Palestinians never waste an opportunity to waste an opportunity.
I think a concern raised in these videos is accepting a difference of viewpoints. This is clearly not the issue here, but rather how the university handled the forum by which to express different viewpoints: in short from the Harris school’s perspective this was going to be a one way lecture not a discussion. When Mearscheimer spoke, not only were people who were heckling not removed from the audience (no one was) but they were also allowed to ask questions to the panelists. Media and recording were allowed.
My personal belief is that nations and people can be viewed as macrocosms/microcosms of each other. The University of Chicago, shamefully, did not allow ANY kind of recording, all the videos are being taken with the fear of being removed.
As people came in individuals were given cards, on which they were to write their questions. These cards were passed in, pre-censored, and pre-selected. Not only were the questions pre-selected, but so were the answers! Right off his Wiki (which has coincidentally been changed… … Read More
In the same right, I think any academic study of autocratic nations where people are not allowed the right to free media or free speech through legal means try to present themselves through vocal, spontaneous unplanned protest. I see this event as a microcosm to such conditions. I do not sincerely believe the University wanted students to openly ask Olmert questions from the inception of event, which was kept practically a secret until the day of.
I think Olmert could’ve answered any question in the room and elicit the audience’s response to it. However since that venue was not offered, I am not surprised or really abhorred, but feel empathy towards the students’ reactions. Free speech is the hallmark of any democratic society and open dialogue, and the first party to be ashamed in that room should’ve been the Dean of the Harris School
The world’s refusal to help Israel defend against Hamas and Hezbollah in the aftermath of Israeli withdrawals is certainly cause for Israel to pause before making further withdrawals. The withdrawal from Lebanon was complete and certified by the United Nations, yet Hezbollah does not disarm and when it attacks Israeli soldiers, only the Bush administration stands up for Israel. The withdrawal from Gaza was not complete (because of Israeli control of Gaza’s borders), but the failure of the world community to turn the withdrawal into a success and the resultant bombardment of Sderot and environs from Gaza has turned an opportunity for peace into a confirmation (in Israel’s supporters minds) that withdrawal is a mistake and will be met with continued aggression.
Regardless of whether you agree with a head of state, it is not only rude but unwise not to listen to what he or she has to say when they come to the university to talk to us. Whenever leaders choose to come to speak to us, it is an honor – an honor we should not take lightly. Remember, Olmert is an important person, and we should give him at least the level of respect of listening to what he has to say, since his decisions do make a difference.
As for the accusations of human rights abuses, with regard to Israel, the Goldstone Report does not settle the issue, because – let’s be honest – Israel gets condemned by the UN for human rights abuses regardless of what it does, and the UN human rights council does not have the most upstanding members. There are many, many human rights violating nations on the committee (including – at one time – both China and Saudi Arabia), as well as nations renowned for their antiSemitism. This is a political body, and to treat its declarations as objective fact is to act as if the political nature of the institution and the fact that people are willing to sacrifice other countries, like Israel and – at one time Chechylslovakia – for the sake of their own interests has no relevance. The majority is not always right, and therefore the UN (a majority which includes many tyrannical leaders) is not always right either.
With regard to the war during which he was prime minister, Olmert did not show himself to be an evil leader, but rather an incompetent one. I do not see how his behavior constitutes a war crime. The air strikes, it is true, hit civilians, but there are always casualties of war, and there would have been more casualties of war if he had done what the hawks wanted him to do – invade Lebanon with land forces. He thought, perhaps incorrectly, that the airstrikes would kill fewer people than troops on the ground, since he would be able to avoid killing innocent civilians by setting precise targets. Thus, because of humanitarian and public relations reasons, Olmert chose to limit the counterattack to airstrikes, even though military men rightly told him that they would be less effective in striking at terrorists. With a wife and daughter in Peace Now, Olmert is hardly a reactionary and is probably more guilty of being too soft-hearted than of being hard.
Think to yourself a second, if people across the border either in Canada or in Mexico, started bombing US cities and towns, would it really be outrageous for the US to launch an airstrike which was specifically targeting the launchpads of these missiles, and specifically avoiding civilians? Would the US be committing a warcrime if we made a mistake and accidentally hit civilian targets? If it wouldn’t be outrageous for the US to defend itself in that way under those circumstances, then Israel’s behavior under the same circumstances can hardly be condemned without imposing a double standard.
If you disagree with him, question him. Don’t protest him. Someone likened him to Slobodan Milosevic – I wouldn’t protest Slobodan coming here (I would question him), and likening Olmert to Slobodan speaks volumes about how the protest went. While you may disagree with him, he did what he thought was best for his people. And I’ll also add that the recent Goldstone UN report accused BOTH Israel and Hamas of war crimes (seems you have selective memory, Kat Harkin).
Which brings up a second point – both sides are at fault here. Protesting Olmert is a poor path to peace. Why can’t we all just come together in the knowledge that everybody is suffering and everybody is wrong and work this out? Must we be divisive?
And a third point – we get all riled up and protest-y when Olmert comes, which as I’ve already discussed we shouldn’t do. But supposed we should, what is the token protest going to do? Nothing.
I’d much rather see us unite and use that energy to protest things that we can change – how about grad student funding, financial aid, transportation, dining, housing, budget cuts, town-gown relations, the UCMC, campus workers, university divestment from darfur, and the admissions office absurd and humiliating new policies.
We have enough to productively protest, why waste time on something idiotic and pointless, as well as unproductive and unnecessarily unconfrontational?
AWAMORI, I think people are sick of hearing the same song and dance about Israel defending itself. Its been the Palestinians defending themselves since their land was stolen from beneath them. Also, with the billions in military aid that Israel recieves a year, I highly doubt they are hurting in support for defense. Especially when we are in debt up to our eyeballs. Also since the US vetos anything against them in the UN they have enough defense. Give me a break, Israel has never completely withdrawn from anything or upheld any agreement. That’s why all of these groups lashed out. As for Anonymous, people protested because they DIDNT want him to speak, that was the point. They did not want to hear his point of view, it is not important, hes not important – he is offensive, because he is a criminal, not only by the UN but by his own people. He was forced to resign because of his own stupidity from within his own government. So please spare the respect bit…. And the argument of UN being antisemetic? I’m sorry you seem to have forgotten that it was the UN that helped create Israel, AND in addition to that Arabs are semites as well. As much as Israelis and Jews love to use that term when someone says they are wrong, I hate to break it to you, Arabs are semites too, so that argument doesn’t fly. And trust me if Canadians came to America claiming it was theirs and started setting up camp to stay… I bet you’d fight the rest of your life trying to get your country back. I am trying to understand the opposing view, but it doesn’t seem like anyone is making a valid point… at all.
Nihaya, there is no “real” thing as a Palestinian before 1948 and certainly no trace of them in Jerusalem. Jerusalem has always belonged to the Jewish people and it will always remain that way. You are either mistaken or poorly educated, you twat.
Hey Chris, Before you go on calling some one names I think you need to take a look at this UN MAP of PALESTINE…. how ignorant can one possibly be?
http://domino.un.org/maps/m0082.gif
UOHC student and other’s who have amazing double standards. Obama has authorized US drones in Pakistan which have killed hundreds of civilians. What an amazing murderer is he, per your logic. No country ever ever has let its civilians be rocketed daily without doing something about it. What US and others have done in all their wars – including Iraq and Afghanistan far outweigh what Israel has done to defend it from territory it gave up to a vile enemy that only wishes to exterminate Jews. I have Jewish relatives expelled from Arab countries. NEVER AGAIN! NEVER AGAIN! NEVER AGAIN!
“No country ever ever has let its civilians be rocketed daily without doing something about it.”
Okay, then I guess you’d also accept the following argument: “No country has ever been occupied and abused for forty years without doing something about it.”
Dear C.M., the occupation of Gaza had long ended, even if it had, a country is not going to make peace after being rocketed and threatened to be destroyed! What have you been smoking? If the Arabs had decided to live in peace with Israel rather than threatening to destroy it, there would have been open borders and congenial mutual beneficial relationship. When your neighboor threatens to wipe you out, you defend yourself against them. No country? American Indian nations, first Canadians, Eskimos, Hawaiians, Maori’s, you can go on forever. Half of Israel’s population were Arab Jews living as second class citizen Dhimmi’s – a population exchange – and the Arabs have 100-fold the land as Jews have. Advantage – Arabs