Letter to the editor response to last week's column on UCI protests
It’s usually a satisfactory feeling to receive letters to the editor or feedback on my articles and columns. I mean, I’ve ruffled a few feathers in my day, but I knew I’d be displeased with any responses to my column published in the Graphic two weeks ago, “UCI students protest human rights abuses” (Read: http://www.pepperdine-graphic.com/perspectives/uci-students-protest-human-rights-abuses-1.2160677). So when Whitney, the Perspectives editor, called me over to her desk, my stomach churned. Wonderful. Let’s see what this (expletive) has to say. Here’s my dissection of his, ahem, letter to the editor and the author he referred to as “Ms. Abu-Ghaddas.” Ignorance is so cool.
I’m not sure which piece upset me more, the alumnus who incorrectly assumes that a person with an addiction cannot be helped by Christianity or Ms. Abu-Ghattas’ column on the protests at UC Irvine. A good newspaper encourages debate and this week’s issue certainly accomplished that. For the sake of brevity, I’ll limit my comments to the latter column.
Gee, thanks for letting us know that we pissed you off in various areas. I mean, it’s sort of a compliment that mine did it best. For the sake of brevity, you could have stopped right there.
In her editorial, Ms. Abu-Ghattas asserts that Arab students at UCI who interrupted a speech by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren were merely exercising their First Amendment rights. I believe the framers of our Constitution never intended this right to be a means of preventing debate. If you have seen the news coverage of the speech at UCI, you will see that a group of students systematically and repeatedly interrupted the speaker. I am certain that the author would not feel the same way if a Palestinian speaker was prevented from speaking by a group of Israeli students.
It was a column, not an editorial. The framers of the U.S. Constitution, don’t you dare say “our” — it had nothing to do with you — intended the First Amendment so that no pretentious academic or haughty Brit could ever tell someone to sit their ass down when they’ve got words in their throats. It was to protect the People, not the Government. Oren’s presentation was not a “debate,” as you suggested. A debate requires two opposing sides. Rather, it was a publicity event. He stood at a podium and propagated his, obviously, pro-Israel agenda, representing only one side of an extremely controversial and multi-faceted issue. UC Irvine was “preventing debate” by not inviting a Palestinian speaker to represent the other side. If they had, maybe the students would not have been inclined to offer a rebuttal themselves. I’ve seen the news coverage, and I’ve watched uncut videos of the speech and interruptions, and I know people who were present. Firstly, the media offered a false image by, in some papers, exclusively interviewing students who identified as pro-Israel. Thus, their quotes presented the protesters in a harsher light than did the uncut footage. And Lar, I am in support of nonviolent resistance anytime a group feels violated. If a Palestinian was speaking at a university function and claimed that Palestinians have never contributed to the unwarranted death of an Israeli, I’d be the first voice raised. My purpose in pursuing journalism is one and the same as the pursuit of truth and objectivity. The vast majority of news media is biased to some degree. American news media tends to be biased towards Israel. It’s also largely owned by American Jews. I’m not saying there’s a connection or anything. Just verify, verify, verify. And if you disagree or find discrepancy, by all means speak up.
The author contends that the UCI students’ actions were justified because of alleged human rights abuses by the state of Israel. Certainly the violence is not one-sided. Nowhere in Ms. Abu-Ghattas’ article does she acknowledge any of the terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Are those lost lives any less precious? The author contends that “the eradication of all Muslims sounds a lot like genocide to me.” Yet, most Arab extremist groups advocate exactly the same thing when speaking of Israel. They simply want to destroy the state of Israel and its people. To paraphrase Ms. Abu-Ghattas, that sounds a lot like genocide to me.
I didn’t acknowledge the bloodshed on the Israeli side because I wasn’t attempting to start an open debate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Surely, that would require more than the 650 words I was allotted. I was simply trying to provide an explanation to why these particular students were protesting this particular speaker. And correct me if I’m wrong, but by that line of argument, Mr. Levy agrees that Muslim extremists and Zionists share the same ideals and cognitive process. Yep. Zionism: Jewish extremists. How come that isn’t more clearly defined?
Lastly, the author implores fellow Christians to re-evaluate their support of the state of Israel. “What would Jesus do?” asks the author. I think he would be pleased that holy sites in Jerusalem and throughout Israel are protected. Contrast that with the Palestinians’ desecration of Joseph’s tomb in Nablus and Rachel’s Tomb near Bethlehem. Taking this into account, how secure can we Christians feel about holy sites in Jerusalem if it was part of a Palestinian state?
No, but I doubt Jesus wants practicing Christians dead. How should we Christians feel about our tax dollars going toward the murder of Palestinian Christians, who are the only residents of the region interested in preserving exclusively Christian sites. In fact, the insecurity of the West Bank due to fighting between Muslims and Israelis has caused the Christian population to disperse throughout the world — Diaspora? Maybe that’s why I have family on every continent but Antarctica. No more Christians in Bethlehem? That may be the future. Last week, a Palestinian congregation was teargassed by Israeli soldiers during mass in the West Bank. How should American Christians feel about our ally’s protection of freedom of religion? You can answer that.
In summation, what the author and I have done here is an example of free speech. Ms. Abu-Ghattas presented her views and I, as a reader responded with mine. Contrast that to what the students at UC Irvine did and I think you can see my point.
Contrast that with UC Irvine’s one-sided “debate,” and you can see mine.
Larry Levy
Pepperdine Staff
