Friday, 4/18/97 Free speech, even when unpleasant, must be
protected Vandalism reveals some won’t allow opposing view a
voice
By Omar Hamoui Freedom of speech is a fundamental American
principle which we pride and are often envied for. However, on
April 15, just a few steps from the "freedom of speech" podium at
Meyerhoff Park, this principle was challenged. Freedom of speech
can only be a freedom when dissident views not held by the
mainstream are allowed to be expressed and considered in the
decision-making process of an institution or country. An attack on
free speech is an affront to rational thought and progressive
thinking as a whole. The only reason to attack free speech is the
fear that some idea or truth may resound with the people, causing a
facade which has been constructed of lies to crumble. This is why
the events that took place on Bruin Walk this Tuesday were so
shocking and distressing. A coalition of student groups consisting
of the Academic Affairs Commission, the African Student Union,
Al-Talib, the General Representatives Office, La Gente, MEChA, the
Muslim Student Association, NOMMO, Pacific Ties and Samahang
Pilipino put up a number of signs to expose the fallacies and
inconsistencies of Zionism and the plight of the Palestinian
people. They were torn down. The signs were not filled with empty
rhetoric or fiery accusations. Rather, they showed simple
statements made by prominent Zionist (Israeli) leaders. These
statements were not fabricated or modified and they were all
well-documented. The signs contained statements such as this one
made by the former chief of military intelligence, Yehoshofat
Harkabi: "Because we took the land, this gives us the image of
being bad, of being aggressive. The Jews always considered that the
land belong to them, but in fact it belonged to the Arabs. I would
go further: I would say the original source of this conflict lies
with Israel, with the Jews – and you can quote me." ("Peace Won’t
be a Plane Ticket to Cairo," International Armed Forces Journal,
October 1973, p.30) Another example is a statement made by the
former Israeli prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, in reference to the
black African nations who voted in support of the 1975 U.N.
resolution, which denounced Zionism as a form of racism. He said,
"It is unacceptable that nations made up of people who have only
just come down from the trees should take themselves for world
leaders … How can such primitive beings have an opinion of their
own?" (Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, November 14, 1975) This is
the key. These statements were not made by Muslims or by the PLO.
They were not made by Jewish dissidents or anti-Semites. Rather,
they were made by prominent leaders of the Zionist movement. Now
these statements are not pleasant nor do they reflect positively
upon the ideology of Zionism. However, the fact remains that they
are the truth. They are the things which, unbeknownst to many of
us, have been said by the leaders of the nation which receives more
foreign aid from the United States than any other country. The
signs were ripped down. They were ripped from their boards simply
because they made clear an unpleasant reality. What is even more
distressing is that I personally witnessed them being torn down on
two separate occasions – once by a man who was stopped only when
several CSO officers arrived to prevent him from destroying the
rest of the signs. As I witnessed these events, I was truly
shocked. I did not understand how those who have traditionally
championed free speech could all of a sudden throw these ideals to
the wind simply because someone’s idea of free speech was
offensive. I did not understand how someone could become so enraged
by statements made by their own leadership. I would have welcomed
rational dialogue or refutation of the points made by the signs. I
would have welcomed proof that any of the statements made by the
Zionist leaders were fabricated. Any of these things would have
been better than the irrational vandalism which took place. Let me
preemptively attempt to sidestep all the accusations of
anti-Semitism which I am sure to encounter. I am a Semite. I am not
anti-Jewish. The issue here is not Judaism at all. The issue is not
even Zionism as a political ideology. The issue on the table is
free speech. If you choose to respond to this article, please do
not begin by flinging accusations of bigotry at me. If you choose
to respond to this article, I challenge you to tell me why this
coalition, made up mainly of minority student groups, should not
have the right to put up these signs. Why should the minority
groups always remain silent? I challenge you to present a cogent
argument as to why the right to free speech should be eliminated
when it comes to speaking out against Israel. I understand that
this freedom is not absolute and has limitations. However, the
posters unveiling the truth of Zionism and the state of Israel were
neither a threat to national security nor did they endanger lives.
But perhaps they did endanger lies.