Daniel Greenfield
FrontPage Mag, March 5, 2013
This year the David Horowitz Freedom Center has responded to Israeli Apartheid Week with Islamic Apartheid Week. Unlike Israeli Apartheid Week, which is based on a lie, Islamic Apartheid Week addresses the sexism, homophobia and religious bigotry threatening minorities in the Muslim world. To promote Islamic Apartheid Week, the Freedom Center attempted to place an ad in forty college papers.
The ad called “Faces of Islamic Apartheid” drew attention to the victims of Islamic sexism, homophobia and theocracy by briefly telling the stories of gay men hanged in Iran, women and girls murdered by their governments and their families for the crime of falling in love and the Christian Minister for Minorities Affairs in Pakistan’s cabinet who was murdered for trying to reform his country’s theocratic blasphemy laws.
These four women, three men and one little girl were the victims of Islamic Apartheid. Five of them have been murdered. Their memory lives on only when they are remembered. One has been on death row for six years. Telling her story may help save her life. The remaining two live under threat of death.
Instead of listening to their stories, the campus culture of political correctness drowned out their voices and apologized for even allowing their stories to be told.
Nine college papers turned the ad down, five of them in the University of California system which has been criticized for tolerating anti-Semitism. When the California State Assembly passed a resolution condemning anti-Semitism on campus and warned that no public resources should be used for anti-Semitic hate, the University of California objected on free speech grounds. However free speech for Israeli Apartheid Week did not translate into free speech for Islamic Apartheid Week.
Seven college papers took the advertisement. Of those papers, Tufts University’s Tufts Daily and Austin’s Daily Texan both ran apologies from their editors for even printing the ad.
Tufts Daily editor Martha Shanahan called the decision to run the ad an “editorial oversight.” Daily Texan editor Susannah Jacob denounced the attempt to tell the stories of victimized women and children as “hateful” and “an unspoken incitement to violence.”
Martha Shanahan spent two pages apologizing for the existence of the “Islamophobic and violently offensive” advertisement, the existence of Tufts Daily, its staff and her own existence. At no point during her long series of apologies, did Martha acknowledge that her paper had run four editorials in a single week from Students for Justice in Palestine attacking Israel and promoting hatred for the Jewish State. And in an unequal response to this, it also ran a brief letter from Tufts Friends of Israel distancing itself from the ad and politely suggesting that apartheid shouldn’t be used to refer to Israel.
Anthony Monaco, the President of Tufts University, took to Twitter to denounce the advertisement for vilifying Islam, but made no such denunciation of the Tufts Daily’s op-ed, “The Case for Israeli Apartheid” which (not coincidentally) appeared on the same day as the ad. At Tufts, no one apologizes for accusing democratic Israel of apartheid. There are only apologies when theocratic Iran and Pakistan are accused of practicing Islamic Apartheid.
When anti-Israel voices are outweighed 4-to-1 and the editor apologizes for publishing another perspective that would have made it 4-to-2 then the freedom of debate at Tufts University is in a very sad state. When that same editor prints editorials describing Israel as an apartheid state, but promises to put in place an entire system of oversight to make certain that no advertisement challenging Islamic Apartheid is ever printed again, then a system of censorship has been put into place silencing the voices of victims and encouraging their persecutors.
The Daily Texan’s Susannah Jacob claimed that the crosshairs over the faces of the victims were an incitement to violence when they were actually a way of bringing urgency to the violence that had been committed against them. And making it clear that she never even saw the advertisement that she was denouncing, Susannah described the ad as depicting six women, when it included two gay men, one Christian man and one little girl.
Susannah further distorted the truth about Islamic Apartheid when she described the pervasive sexism, homophobia and theocracy that these people fell victim to as “discrete incidents of violence by Muslims” being used “to implicate all Muslims” while ignoring the fact that five of the victims in the ad had been targeted by their governments or with government backing.
Can the Daily Texan’s editor honestly claim that Iran’s persecution of women and gay men or Pakistan’s persecution of Christians are “discrete incidents of violence”, rather than state policy? Could she find a single human rights organization that would agree with such a dishonest whitewashing of the terror under which millions live?
The responses to the advertisement have established once again that some forms of apartheid are privileged on campus and that some forms of persecution cannot be talked about. Demonizing the Israeli victims of Islamic terror is within the realm of campus free speech, but speaking about the vulnerable minorities in the Muslim world is not.
If the advertisement was wrong, then there would have been no need to censor it. False claims can easily be disproven. Five minutes with Google would have told every reader and editor whether there was any truth to the Faces of Islamic Apartheid.
It is never necessary to censor lies. It is only necessary to censor truth.
That is why the majority of campus papers – ten so far, including Harvard whose editors said they would not print it under any circumstances — refused to run this paid advertisement. It is why those few who did have begun making ritual apologies while lying about its contents. It is why the attacks on the advertisement have taken refuge in vague platitudes about offensiveness, without a single attempt at a factual rebuttal. It is why every response to the advertisement has consisted of claiming that speaking about Islamic bigotry is the real bigotry.
There were eight faces and eight names in the censored advertisement that the President of Tufts, the editors of Tufts Daily, the Daily Texan and the editors of ten college papers that turned down the ad, did not want their students to see or know about because it might disturb the manufactured campus consensus that they have constructed with great effort around Israel and Islamic terrorism.
These are the names. Amina Said. Sarah Said. Afshan Azad. Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani. Shahbas Bhatti. Rimsha Masih. Mahmoud Asgari. Ayaz Marhoni.
They were repressed as individuals. Now their story is being repressed on the American campus.
Patrick Mascoe
DBMoment, March 5, 2013
It’s that time of year again (March 4th – 8th), when our institutions of higher learning take a week out of their busy schedules to collectively confuse the right to free speech with hate speech in order to promote and celebrate anti-Semitism week. Oh, I know it’s officially called Israel Apartheid Week, but really, whatever you choose to call it, it’s nothing short of absurd. Originally started in 2005, by the Arab Student Collective at the University of Toronto, a number of Canadian and American academic institutions have chosen to blindly follow along.
According to the IAW website, the aim of Israel Apartheid Week is to educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestments, Sanctions (BDS) campaigns as part of a growing global movement. Here in North America people have the right to free speech; however, the extremist nature of this event serves not to enlighten the uninformed but rather to promote hatred and intolerance within our university campuses.
Initially, the Toronto Arab Student Collective developed a rudimentary website used specifically to inform its followers of various IAW activities. However, with the growth of the IAW movement a more sophisticated website entitled, the “Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) Movement” soon emerged claiming to represent the Palestinian National Committee.
Canadian historian David Lowenthal has spoken often about the fact that societies regularly invent false information and fabricate heritage. This he tells us should not be confused with history. Interestingly, in the Islamic world the concept of fabrication is known as al-taquiyya and according to Hebrew University professor and author, Raphael Israeli, it is used as a form of jihad to deceive ones’ enemies.
Whether the term is al-taquiyya or fabrication, the BDS website appears to have intentionally misinformed its readers regarding the wording of historical documents. According to the website, one of their main objectives is to have Israel adhere to United Nations Resolution 194. The website phrases that request as follows, “Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.” In truth, Resolution 194, never uses the word Palestinians but does state that, “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so.”
The majority of countries voting accepted the resolution, but six Arab countries nonetheless rejected it. Israel, who was not yet a member of the United Nations, did not have a vote. This appears to be a substantial omission on the part of the BDS Movement. By ignoring that particular information, and rewording the actual resolution, it appears they have intentionally portrayed Israel as the one who rejected resolution 194.
Another problem with both the BDS and IAW websites is that it limits contact and conceals authorship. Websites of this nature are known as “cloaked websites.” According to City University New York professor Jessie Daniels, these are websites that often have a political agenda that makes it difficult to distinguish fact from propaganda. Daniels states, “Cloaked websites deliberately seek to disguise the racism of the authors and the rhetoric used regularly mimics the language of civil rights in order to deceive.”
Both websites intentionally use the apartheid label to describe the state of Israel because it implies a comparison to the apartheid of South Africa where blacks suffered countless atrocities at the hands of their white oppressors. Is this label accurate or embellished? According to Oxford professor, Brian Klug, such a comparison is “profoundly unjust.” Any comparison between Israel and South Africa is based on a “false” analogy with facts having been intentionally misrepresented so as to present Israel in a negative light.
This might explain why the BDS and IAW organizers seem so selective when using the apartheid stamp. If apartheid means the racial segregation or discrimination of one group over another then why is it that only Israel wears that label? Islamic law breaks society down into two distinct groups, believers and non-believers. Non-believers face suppression of religious beliefs, often cannot hold positions of authority, and have little protection under the law. Legal segregation based on one’s religion is no different than apartheid based on racial segregation. So, if Israel is an apartheid state and we view the rest of the Middle East by the same standards, then why is it that only Israel being labeled?
Herein lies the problem with the BDS website and activities like Israel Apartheid Week; it is hard to establish what purpose is really being served. Is the true goal resolving injustice or is it about disseminating propaganda aimed at university campuses in order to promote intolerance?
Our universities need to be more responsible. They should not be breeding grounds for hatred and violence. Universities need to do more than just protect students’ right to free speech. They also need to protect their right to learn and study in a safe environment, free of intolerance, discrimination, and violence.
Stephen Schwartz
American Thinker, March 10, 2013
Hagel, who represented Nebraska as a Republican U.S. Senator from 1997 to 2009, has long advocated a soft line toward the brutal theocratic regime, as exemplified by his call in 2007 for "direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran."
He has participated in at least one Middle East Studies event organized by Tehran's tenured apologists and subsidized by the Iranian regime. As described by Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens, Hagel addressed a March 2007 conference at Rutgers University co-sponsored by the school's Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) and the shadowy group that, as pointed out by the WSJ's Stephens and others, helped pay for the Rutgers AIC event: the Alavi Foundation.
Alavi is an arm of the Tehran government that has granted substantial sums to American and Canadian universities. Its 2010 Form 990, filed in compliance with its nonprofit status with the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, listed assets of $39,082,555. Alavi's "Direct Charitable Activities" were limited to four, all school-related: "Farsi Schools in Various Universities and Schools," "Information Education Centers," "Publication and Book Distribution," and "Interest Free Loans to Education Centers." Its total grant outlay for that year was $2,148,630. The 2007 Form 990 from Alavi included a line for Rutgers, indicating that Alavi's investment in the Rutgers CMES and, presumably, the event with AIC and Hagel, was $72,500.
Alavi's support for the 2007 Rutgers event at which Hagel spoke offers a profile of its academic outreach. Hooshang Amirahmadi, currently a professor of development and international relations at Rutgers, was director of the CMES in 2007. He is also founder and president of the American Iranian Council. Amirahmadi was succeeded as head of the Rutgers CMES by Peter B. Golden, an emeritus professor with a background in Central Asian studies, whose views are cautious and measured.
But the recipient of choice for Alavi's financing of American Middle East Studies is Harvard, with its $345,000 in publicly reported gifts from the ruthless oppressors of Iran over nine years, with the tax form covering the remainder of 2011 unavailable at this time. As disclosed in other Alavi publicity, the foundation gave $40,000 to Harvard for its Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) in January 2011. This was followed by $10,000 later that year for a Harvard tutoring program by Mahdavi Damghani, a graduate in Shiite theology from Tehran University who has taught there from 1966 to 1985 and who now teaches at CMES, which received $24,000 from Alavi in 2012.
In its Form 990 documentation from 2004 to 2010, Alavi gifts to Harvard were:
• $41,000 (2004 and first quarter 2005;
• $36,000 (2005 to the end of March 2006;
• $36,000 in 2006 and early 2007;
• $41,000 in 2007 through the first quarter of 2008;
• $41,000 for the remainder of 2008 and the first quarter of 2009;
• $41,000 in 2009 and early 2010;
• $75,000 in 2010 and the first three months of 2011.
In 2011, Alavi cosponsored, with three Shia Muslim theological bodies, a conference at Hartford Seminary in Connecticut on "The State of the Study of Shi'ite Islam." The top featured speaker was Ingrid Mattson, the former president of the Muslim fundamentalist Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), who at that time taught at Hartford and now holds an Islamist-funded chair at Huron University College in Ontario. Mahmoud Ayoub, a native of South Lebanon and Hartford faculty member, also participated. Alavi provided Hartford with $47,000 to pay for the event, according to an announcement by the foundation. In 2012, according to a press release, Alavi gave Hartford $35,000 more to support Ayoub's teaching on Shiism.
Alavi's generosity north of the border includes $90,000 in 2011 and $30,000 in 2012 to McGill University's Institute of Islamic Studies, in Montreal, Quebec. A statement (in awkward English) accompanying the 2012 gift proclaimed:
In the past twenty-five years, Alavi Foundation has distributed over several millions of dollars in the form of grants to over thirty colleges and universities in North America. Support for Colleges and Universities is one of the Foundation's nine core programs.
Alavi is currently under investigation by the U.S. Treasury Department. In 2009, its former president, Farshid Jahedi, pleaded guilty to two counts of felony obstruction of justice for destroying documents subpoenaed by the Treasury in 2008. American authorities were concerned that the Alavi Foundation disguised its relationship with Bank Melli Iran, an official Tehran financial institution. In the Alavi case, which remains unresolved, the U.S. government also sought to take over Iranian-controlled properties, including mosques and schools, in New York, Maryland, Virginia, Texas, and California.
A third co-sponsor of the 2007 Rutgers meeting was the American Iranian Council (AIC), which keeps a low profile. Its honorary board includes America's most candid academic enthusiast for radical Islam, John Esposito, founder-director of Georgetown University's Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding (ACMCU). Hagel has taught as Esposito's colleague at Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, though Hagel's profile page is, curiously, blank. A Georgetown press bulletin celebrating his Defense nomination states he is a "Distinguished Professor in the Practice of National Governance."
The controversy stirred up by Secretary Hagel's history as an apologist for the Iranian clerical rulers offers an opportunity — and obligation — to explore in greater depth Iran's infiltration of America's Middle East studies establishment from Harvard to Hartford and beyond. The U.S. must contend not only with Arabist and general Islamist activities on its campuses, but with Iranian propaganda sponsored by an apocalyptic despotism that seeks hegemony over its neighbors, the destruction of Israel, and intimidation of the West. It's past time to stem the flow of these tainted funds.
