Friday, November 30, 2007

Shoebat: The Inside Story

Unless you have been in a coma for the past week, you know that former PLO-terrorist Walid Shoebat is scheduled to speak at UWM Tuesday evening, December 4, and his talk is to be sponsored by the Conservative Union of UWM. Now, here is the rest of the story.

At the June, 2007, meeting of the Executive Committee of the Advocates for Israel of Milwaukee (AIM), the Vice President for Educational Outreach Ivan M Lang proposed that AIM sponsor a speech by Walid Shoebat sometime in the Fall of 2007. The Exec Committee voted to pledge $1,000 toward the cost of the project, with the balance needed to raised from donors. Lang, the project manager, had asked UWM Hillel to host the event, but Hillel declined. He said he would continue to seek a UWM student group to co-sponsor the event, so it could be held on campus.

AIM, which had been founded as the Pro-Israel Person Chavura of Congregation Shalom by Bob Breslauer, had sponsored a talk on October 29, 2006, by Nonie Darwish at Cardinal Stritch University. Darwish was the daughter of an Arab terrorist, who had become a supporter of Israel. Her speech drew a crowd of nearly 300, mostly Jewish. Although her speech was not confrontational at all, she had been interrupted once and the man responsible was easily escorted out of the room.

Although Cardinal Stritch would have been available for the Shoebat speech, Ivan Lang wanted it at UWM in order to present a pro-Israel message to a public university student body, which is exposed to far more anti-Israel rhetoric. Since UWM has a sizable Arab (and other Muslim ) student enrollment, the prospect of a hostile response was evident from the start.

Meanwhile, tension within AIM was brewing between Lang and Breslauer. One bone of contention was the By-Law, authored by Breslauer, that gave him as Founder of AIM a lifetime seat on the Executive Committee . At the September 6, 2007, meeting of the group, Lang moved to eliminate this provision. After heated discussion, the motion was defeated by a vote of 14 to 9, including absentee ballots. (Since it was a By-Law change, two-thirds of those voting, 15 votes, would have been required for adoption). Ivan Lang resigned from AIM at the close of the meeting. Secretary Nancy Weiss-McQuide, who had seconded the proposed By-Law change, resigned shortly thereafter.

On November 5 Ivan Lang and Nancy Weiss-McQuide organized a new group entitled Committee for Truth and Justice (CTJ) at Congregation Anshe Sfard Kehillat Torah. The new group would co-sponsor the Shoebat speech with the UWM Conservative Union (CU) on the campus.

Four days later Lang, McQuide, Conservative Union leader A J Piwarun and I (President of AIM) met at the Alterra Cafe to organize the Shoebat appearance, which had been scheduled for December 4 in the Wisconsin Room of the UWM Student Union. Piwarun told us that UWM would charge about $500 for the room and set-up. Shoebat would charge $5,000 for the speech, and we budgeted about $1,500 for publicity and other expenses. I noted that AIM had authorized $1,000 for Shoebat, but that vote was based upon AIM being in charge of the event. To pay the same amount for a co-sponsorship would require another vote. I promised to do what I could to gain approval.

At the November 11 AIM meeting I offered a substitute Project Format for the Shoebat event, naming myself as manager and making AIM a co-sponsor, along with CU and CTJ. AIM Chief Financial Officer Arthur Friedman led the opposition to the project, citing both security concerns and the partnership with CU, which has ties to the Republican Party. Friedman was concerned that AIM would jeopardize its status as a 501(c)3 (charitable) organization. The substitute Project was approved by a vote of 5 to 3.

Within two weeks, the UWM Muslim Student Association (MSA) demanded that UWM cancel the event because Shoebat might incite listeners to harm Muslim students. This demand is a classic case of "prior restraint" on the freedom of speech, which would breach the First Amendment. WTMJ radio talk-show host Charles Sykes devoted about an hour of his November 27 show to denouncing the MSA position, and expressing fear that UWM officials would cave in to it. He asked rhetorically if liberals would demand free speech for Shoebat. I called in and told him that I was a liberal and president of one of the sponsoring organizations! Sykes cut me off .

Although UWM officials did not cave in the MSA demand and cancel Shoebat, they demanded that the CU put up $2,500 for additional security personnel. Since only $500 had been budgeted for the venue, CU was about $2,000 short. I called Chancellor Carlos Santiago to request that he overrule the decision, but was told he was in a meeting. I then asked for the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs, and was shunted off to her assistant, who told me the Vice Chancellor supported the fee hike. Meanwhile, Piwarun had persuaded Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke (1) to provide security for the speech at no charge.

According to the November 30 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Clarke contacted Santiago about providing security,and apparently got through to him. By that time, the Chancellor had already decided to forego the $2,000 increase in the cost of the venue. Neither this article, nor the previous article on November 28, mentioned either of the co-sponsoring groups: AIM and CTJ. To the general public, the Jews are not parties to this dispute.

Perhaps it is best that, to the people of Milwaukee, it is the Conservative Union, not Advocates for Israel of Milwaukee, that is behind the Shoebat event. The message is that terrorism threatens America, not just Israel. Amen!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Although a conservative, he was elected twice on the Democratic ticket. He was appointed Sheriff by Republican Governor Scott McCallum to fill a vacancy.

Labels: ,

Monday, November 26, 2007

The View From Damascus

"Syria will join Mideast talks in Washington"
Associated Press, Nov. 26, 2007

By sending an envoy (although not a top-ranking figure) to the current peace conference in Washington and Annapolis, Syria has broken ranks with the Rejection Front of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas. While acting as a major conduit of arms between Tehran and the latter two terrorist groups, Damascus is now pursuing a distinctly more pacific policy than they are. Why the change? Let's look at the world from Damascus:

Israel: In September Israeli jets bombed a building in Syria, said to be a North Korean nuclear reactor under construction. This attack and the low-keyed reaction from Syria point to two important facts:
1. Syria's air defenses are worthless. Israeli warplanes encountered no anti-aircraft fire or Syrian fighters while striking the target, deep in Syrian airspace.
2. Syria avoids confrontation. When Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak in 1981, the UN Security Council condemned Israel for an act of aggression. This time, not only did Syria not retaliate, but Damascus did not even file a complaint with the UN, even though the bombing was a clear violation of the 1973 cease-fire and disengagement agreement.
Just imagine the outcry if during the ColdWar Soviet bombers would have destroyed a vacant cabin at Cedar Lake during the off-season!
Conclusions: Syria is trying to conceal whatever was destroyed by the Israelis, and is carefully avoiding a confrontation with the Jewish state.
Instead, Syria is seeking a US-brokered deal to regain the Golan Heights, lost to Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War. If offered iron-clad security guarantees, such as American troops on the Golan cease-fire line, Israel may take the deal. But can the Syrian regime survive a peace-treaty with Israel? Anwar Sadat could not.

Lebanon: Two years after Syria was forced to withdraw its army from Lebanon, the pro-Syrian President Emile LaHoud has left office. So far, no successor has been elected by the Parliament; the Syrian-backed Shiite Hezbollah militia may be making a bid for power right now. Civil war is a serious possibility. If the US or Israel intervenes, can Syria sit it out?

Iran: Although the vast majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims, Syria is aligned with militantly Shiite Iran. Mutual hostility toward Israel is cementing the alliance----so far. But there are two flies in this ointment:
1. Religious war among Muslims: A major confrontation looms between Iran and the Sunni Arab powers----if fighting erupts between them, can Syria afford to be allied with Iran? This could pose a big problem for President Assad since he is not Sunni, but Alawi, which is closer to Shia Islam.
2. Ahmadinejad: Although the borderline crackpot President of Iran does not command its armed forces (1), his bellicose threats, coupled with uranium-enrichment activities, could provoke a war between Iran and the US or Israel, or both, which Iran would certainly lose.

United States: Syria is surrounded by countries either allied with the US (Turkey, Israel, and Jordan) or partially-occupied by US armed forces (Iraq). Despite its support for Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria has been aligned with the US against Al Qaida, especially its forces in Iraq. Given the level of mutual hostility between Tehran and Washington, Syria's role is akin to riding two horses headed in opposite directions.
The fact that Syria has chosen to attend the Washington Peace Conference against the warnings of the Rejection Front is a sign that Damascus has chosen the American horse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) All Iranian military and security forces report to Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, Supreme Leader of the Guardian Council.

Labels: , ,