.jpg)
Sahar Francis is a Palestinian human rights activist whose cause is the Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. On the evening of May 6, she spoke at UC Irvine on behalf of the Muslim Student Union. Her organization is called Addameer. The audience consisted of about 30-35 people all but a handful were MSU members.
Prior to the event, I spoke with two UCI campus police officers who were in attendance though not inside the hall. I asked them what their policy was regarding members of the public videotaping these events since I had recently been advised on two occasions by the MSU and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) that videotaping was prohibited. On both occasions, I informed them that since these were public events on public university campuses that I had right right to film and would do so unless ordered by campus police not to. On this occasion I was told by the officers that filming was OK and they would talk to the MSU about it. The officers anticipated that a special area might be set up for filming. I showed him my hand held video camera, and was told there would be no problem.
Sure enough, the moderator introducing Francis stated that no filming would be allowed. At that point, I walked outside to find the officers, but they were nowhere in sight. I returned to the hall and proceeded to film. Within five minutes, a male MSU student approached me and told me filming was not allowed. As in the past, I informed him that this was a public event at a public university and that I had a legal right to film. I asked him to go and get the campus police since I would only stop filming if ordered to do so by the campus police. The police never came in and I proceeded to film until my camera ran out of battery during the q and a.
As for Ms Francis' speech, I am posting it, but suffice to say if you want to know what she said, go ahead and torture yourself for an hour. She speaks in a monologue and is so boring she makes Harry Reid sound like a Little Richard concert. That's how bad a speaker she is although she speaks without notes. The thesis of her talk was that Israel is violating human rights against Palestinian prisoners. I watched the audience, and I got the impression she lost them she was so boring.
As for the q and a, I asked her if she was advocating for the release of such prisoners as the Awad brothers, who in 2011 committed the horrific Fogel massacre in Itamar, wherein they murdered a family of five including three children, ages 11, 4 and 3 months-an infant in its crib who had its throat slashed. I won't try to repeat her non-answer-you can judge it for yourself in the video. I and two like-minded friends got up and walked out rather than listen to any more of her tripe.
Upon leaving, I related what had happened to the two campus cops and suggested they explain the law to the MSU so as to avoid future "misunderstandings". They indicated they would speak with them and relay the matter to the Judicial Affairs office of UCI.
I should be able to get the video up tomorrow.
* Update: Here is the "prohibited" video. Note that at the beginning of the first clip is where I am told no filming is allowed. My question to Francis comes just before the 17 minute mark of the second video. Note the directions regarding questions that the moderator gives in order to prevent follow up questions.
7 comments:
I can well believe that "She speaks in a monologue and is so boring she makes Harry Reid sound like a Little Richard concert." Good causes, bad causes, and mixed causes, all have their share of bad speakers, and advocates with bad motives.
As to the Fogel massacre... I have always opposed notions of group punishment, or targeting a specific individual, or set of individuals, for being representative of a group, however odious.
But to keep things in perspective, I remind you once again that when Aryan German farmers were settled in occupied Polish territory, the Polish Home Army, the Polish communist resistance, and the Polish Jewish resistance, all considered it right and good to slaughter everyone in those villages and burn them down. Sic semper occupiers.
The outcry about the Fogels seems to be a case of, now the shoe is on the other foot.
Whether or not one believes that there is such a thing as Palestinians, whether or not one believes that a Palestinian state is feasible, desirable, or morally acceptable, it is a cold hard fact that Jewish settlements are routinely encroaching on land where their Arab, non-Jewish neighbors have been living and farming and grazing their flocks, using the army to evict the previous owners on a pretext of military necessity.
A dozen boring speakers doesn't erase such facts, nor excuse them.
She did not get into a "compare and contrast" discussion of the conditions in the prisons in the surrounding Arab countries as you would expect from a real academic. She also spoke of the prisoners as though they were in the prisons without reasons.
She skimmed over the Shallit case until I brought it up.
I also confronted her with the observation that if there were no lies there would be no wars. What she was doing was propagandizing the couple of dozen students there with hate for Israel.
I saw more situations like this there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl85AL1l0H0
I only watched the last 5 minutes and that was enough. She gave an awful answer to the question. I am for a prisoner release as part of a peace agreement but not for all prisoners who committed brutal murders like the ones you noted. And I do see attacks on settlers being different than attacks inside Israel proper.
Murder is murder. The settlements if you want to call them that are on land that is still disputed and claimed by both sides to be determined by an eventual peace agreement.
No?
No. That is a bold faced lie Gary. The settlements are being built on land that is POLITICALLY disputed, as to which nation has SOVEREIGNTY, or whether there even are two nations, or even one, legitimately there. But, it is indisputable that civilians were engaged in peaceful agricultural use of the land until another group of civilians who envied their neighbors' land, oxes, asses, etc, all but there wives, decided to use a conveniently available military force to move their neighbors out and take over their neighbors land.
By comparison, when the U.S. took possession of about one third of Mexico, the treaty provided that all individual land owners and residents, whatever their ethnicity or nationality, would be confirmed in their land titles and extended full rights of citizenship. That wasn't always honored in practice on the ground, but that was the legal language, and it was the right thing to do.
Bald faced lie, Siarlys? Tell me what country the settlements are standing on.
There goes Gary, tip toeing around the tulips... Like I said Gary, which COUNTRY it is doesn't matter. Suppose its all Israel, firmly established, agreed to by all, recognized by the United Nations... its still a case of one group of civilians stealing the land that another group of civilians is already settled on and using for productive agriculture.
If the Israeli government condones and facilitates this, then all the comparisons to South African apartheid suddenly become quite legitimate. Is that what you want?
Post a Comment