168

Attack of MSU Unjustified

I would like to know which university Mr. Cadry attends. Obviously he does not go to UCI because if he did, he would know that the Muslim Student Union is not the organization he claims them to be.
How can he accuse the MSU of, as he puts it, engaging in ‘malicious attempts to brainwash all 23,000 students on campus’ and ‘imposing their radical political beliefs upon UCI’s student body?’
In my opinion, Cadry sounds more and more like a radical himself because of his vicious attacks on the MSU. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Although Cadry states that ‘The members of the MSU have a right to exercise their freedom of speech’ it is evident in his writing that is not his true opinion.
He advocates a denial of the first amendment right for the MSU; claiming that they have taken ‘freedom of speech too far.’
The action he calls for is itself extremely radical and unlawful. Did he think about this when he wrote the article?
In reality, the MSU is a student organization that merely strives to inform people of news that is not in the mainstream media.
If dispersing information is too radical for Cadry, then he shouldn’t read newspapers.
It is true, however, that some of their members have engaged in behavior that could be seen as extreme and erratic by some. But you cannot judge an organization or a movement by one or two of its members; you must view its members as a complete entity.
Otherwise, one falls into the category of ignorant when one stereotypes and judges an entire group based on an individual’s actions.
This is comparable to stereotypes of minorities, specifically Mexicans, who are often portrayed as lazy, dirty people with no aspirations.
Stereotypes, as educated people know, stem from racist ideals. Therefore, it is important for everyone, as human beings, to not engage in stereotypes.
In addition, if Cadry is going to stereotype one religious organization, he might as well stereotype them all.
I have seen many Christian clubs on Ring Road handing out flyers and religious literature. Am I compelled to call them radical and brainwashing organizations? Of course not.
Hopefully someone can ‘knock some sense’ into Cadry and let him know that stereotypes are unacceptable and ignorant.

Olivia Rodriguez
criminology, law and
society and psychology and social behavior major

Defining Anti-Semitism Ignores Real Problem

Mr. Sabet’s discussion in last week’s New University on anti-Semitism is quite indicative of the moral vortex now consuming the Arab-Muslim world. Mr. Sabet correctly points out that ‘a Semite is a member of a group of Semitic-speaking people of the near-East and Northern Africa,’ but he then equates the linguistic commonalities between peoples of different histories and cultural backgrounds to a common racial makeup, a racial makeup that of course excludes Jews of ‘fair skin.’ This separation is then used to argue that Arabs can not, as Semites, be anti-Semitic unless one argues that ‘Arabs seek self-destruction as well.’ To Mr. Sabet, the improper use of the term anti-Semite is a conspiracy by Jews to claim the entirety of the Semitic identity and in effect stake a legitimate claim on Semitic land, Israel.
The objective of this is obvious. If you can strip Jews of their identity with Semitic territory, then Jews would in turn have no claim to the land which we know as Israel.
Mr. Sabet’s reasoning is an attempt at placing the Arab world’s political aim of destroying Israel behind a veil of international rhetoric that no Arab would even understand, since the words Semite and anti-Semite mean nothing in Arabic. But by basing his argument on the word Semite Mr. Sabet is necessarily imposing a racial language that only the West can understand, while at the same time invoking images of the historically anti-Jewish history of the West. The West does not associate anti-Semitism with anything but hateful actions towards Jews. By stripping Jews of their identities as Semites, his intention is to strip Jews of their suffering, a critical precursor to wiping Israel off the map. If Mr. Sabet can then transfer the emotions invoked by the word anti-Semitic to Arabs, then the critical objective of claiming Jewish suffering as their own will have been achieved. This deconstruction of Israel would then result in an advantageous position in international affairs by claiming what they believe to be the higher moral ground.
Mr. Sabet then ends what began as an exercise in intellectual honesty with the intellectually dishonest separation of the terms Israel and Jew. Israel is a Jewish state. You cannot promote the destruction of one without the other, and while Mr. Sabet admits that ‘some Arabs may wish to see the absolute removal of Israel from once-Palestinian lands’ he argues that ‘most accept Israel’s right to exist and have not hatred for all Jews, but rather for the occupying and brutally oppressive nature of Israel towards Palestinians.’ The intellectual dishonesty in this is more than the mere parsing of words.
Mr. Sabet ignores the stated objectives of Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization, now antiseptically known as the Palestinian Authority. The stated goals of Yasser Arafat’s PLO and that of other groups such as Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade is the explicit destruction of Israel and of the Jews. The Arab world and its leaders induced by fanatical Islam make no differentiation between Israel and the Jews, yet Mr. Sabet relies on ignorance to convince you that it is OK to hate Israel without its association with the history of hating Jews. The only condition the existence of Jews on ‘Palestinian land’ would be acceptable is as a subservient underclass known in Islam as ‘dhimmi.’
Mr. Sabet continues his reliance on ignorance by practicing a bit of linguistic acrobatics himself by his invocation of the myth of the Palestinian as a coherent group of people, when no such thing exists. The word ‘Palestinian’ is an aberration and never entered into the dialogue of the West or the Arab world as anything but a geographical location with political boundaries that required administering. As a people, what we now consider to be Palestinian is historically and racially indistinguishable from what are now Jordanians and Syrians.
Mr. Sabet also conveniently ignores the fact that ‘Palestinians’ live within the boundaries of Syria, Jordan and Egypt, and as we speak are confined to refugee camps there that have existed since Israel successfully defended herself from Arab attacks in 1956, 1967, 1973 and so on. These refugee camps are kept in pitiful squalor where Arab uses fellow Arab as a political pawn for the purposes of directing moral condemnation against Jews. If Mr. Sabet were so morally outraged by the conditions of the ‘Palestinian,’ his anger should not be directed towards Israel, but first towards the leaders of his own people who have used the suffering of ‘Palestinians’ for almost 50 years as a means to score political points in the moral black hole known as the United Nations.
As the Muslim Student Union and the Society of Arab Students condemn Israel for parsing words, they make no effort to condemn the actions of those who strap bombs to their bodies and blow up buses full of women and children. Just two weeks ago terrorists forced a car suspected of transporting infidel Jews off the road. When the terrorists ran up to the car to find a pregnant woman and her four children they shot them. Israeli soldiers found their bodies still strapped to their seatbelts. Arafat’s response to this was to call the killers, who were subsequently killed, ‘heroic martyrs.’ MSU, ASA and the Arab world fell silent on that day as they do every time innocent Jews are killed.
Until MSU and SAS become intellectually honest with themselves, we as a society must understand that their infatuation with destroying Jews has grown so blindingly maniacal and their moral bearing has gone so seriously astray that they are willing to forgive Arabs killing pregnant women alongside her children and, contrary to Mr. Sabet’s argument, have proven time and again that they are indeed more than willing to self-destruct.

Stephen Nuno
associate editor of
Irvine Review
political science major

In this article