Sunday, May 16, 2010

Update On UCSD MSA Member Who Admitted She Wants A Second Holocaust

You may remember my piece from a few days ago about a Muslim Students Association member at UCSD named Jumanah Imad Albahri who had the above exchange with author and speaker David Horowitz in which she refused to condemn Hamas or Hezbollah and said she was for a second Holocaust.

After I wrote the piece, I received an e-mail from one of Ms. Albahri's professors, Anita Casavantes Bradford in which she defended Ms. Albahri, claiming that her student had been manipulated into the exchange by Horowitz, was allegedly friendly with some Jews on campus and definitely did not support a second Holocaust.

While I politely pointed out to Professor Bradford that the above video clearly shows that David Horowitz merely asked her directly to unequivocally condemn genocidal organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah ( something she was clearly unwilling to do), I mentioned that the best way for Ms. Albahri to clarify her views would be to issue a statement condemning these groups and state her real views on the matter. I wrote Professor Bradford that if such a statement was forthcoming, I would post a link to it here on my website.

Today, I got an email from Professor Bradford directing me to this blogpost by Jumanah Imad Albahri which was supposed to clarify things.

Unfortunately it does, and it reveals an astonishing ignorance as well as a moral relativism that is simply indefensible. And no,she still refuses to condemn Hamas and Hezbollah. I suggest you read the whole thing ( at least while it's still up), but I will go over the more relevant bits here:

Mr. Horowitz spent an hour indiscriminately attacking liberals, students, Arabs, Muslims, and Palestinians, utilizing verbiage that completely departed from an academic tone and delved into hate speech—especially labeling groups and individuals that support Palestinian rights “terrorists.”

In fact, the Palestinian movement has always made heroes out of those who deliberately target innocent people. That includes those who murder children.... and even murderers like Salakh Khalaf, who headed the Black September group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, and later tortured to death two American diplomats in the Sudan in 1973 on Arafat's orders, Cleo Allen Noel and George Curtis Moore - and later had a street, several buildings and a child's soccer field named after him by the Palestinian Authority.

I asked Mr. Horowitz to explain the purported connection between UCSD’s MSA and “Jihadist Terrorist Networks.” His pamphlet did not mention the organization; rather it focused on other groups like UCI’s MSU and Berkley and LA’s MSA chapters, and offered supporting grounds that can be characterized as shaky at best, with sources that had little credibility. He chose not to engage my question (his opening arguments were the verbatim generalizations made in the pamphlet, though my question asked for specifics) but instead decided to subject me to an interrogation because of my headscarf and Palestinian kuffiyeh. The fact that Mr. Horowitz claimed on a respected national cable news network that the MSA receives forty thousand dollars to put on Justice in Palestine Week, speaks volumes to his status as a gross exaggerator who should not be trusted to deliver opinions on anything.

Actually, David Horowitz has documented quite thoroughly extensive links between the MSA and the Ikhwan, the Muslim Brotherhood, although Ms. Albahri's chapter may or may not be receiving largess from the Ikhwan or its sympathizers. And it's not just him. I suggest also that interested readers do a search on 'Muslim Brotherhood' and 'Muslim Students Association' and settle in for a few hours of highly informative reading.

Insofar as my references to Hitler and the Nazi Youth programs: it was Mr. Horowitz who spent a substantial amount of time referring to the MSA as the “Hitler Youth” and its Justice in Palestine Week as “Hitler Youth Week”— pejorative titles that as a human being, a student of history, and a person of faith, I find disgusting. I uttered them in a sarcastic manner only to point out the ridiculous and slanderous nature of Mr. Horowitz’s labels—Nazis sought the extermination of anyone who was not “white,” and this racial category excludes the vast majority of the Muslim population.

Actually, Ms. Albahri is either ignorant or simply dissembling about the links between the Nazis and the Palestinian/Arab cause.Certainly she's no student of history.

The top Palestinian leader of the era, Muhammed Amin al-Husseini, was an intimate of Hitler and an ally of the Nazis who advocated genocide of every Jew in Palestine and in fact numerous pogroms and massacres of Jews, such as the one in Hebron in 1929 were carried out on his direct orders. During WWII. Husseini, like most other Arab leaders aligned with the Nazi cause, and Husseini spent much of the war translating 'Mein Kampf' into Arabic (where Hitler's book, whose title translates into Arabic as 'My Jihad' remains a best seller), making radio broadcasts in Arabic for the Nazi cause, recruiting Muslim SS troops for the Nazis in places like Bosnia and Albania and planning strategy with the Muslim Brotherhood for a Nazi-Arab alliance with Hitler and Himmler to coincide with a Nazi breathrough in Egypt. The pro-Nazi regime which took over in Iraq was part of this strategy, which also included detailed plans worked out by Husseini and Adolph Eichmann for a death camp for the Jews of Palestine and the Middle East located in Shechem (AKA Nablus).

As a personal note, I directly heard from a friend of my father's who fought with Montgomery and the British 8th Army at El Alamein about how Cairo was decked out with Nazi flags and banners by the Egyptians to welcome the Nazi armies when the 8th Army marched back into the city after winning the battle. I would classify this as anecdotal except for the fact that this little historical detail has been confirmed by numerous others.

According to documentation from the Nuremberg and Eichmann trials, the SS helped finance al-Husseini's efforts in Palestine . And Adolf Eichmann actually visited Palestine and met with al-Husseini shortly before WWII and subsequently maintained regular contact with him later in Berlin.

After the war, Husseini moved to Egypt where he was received as a national hero. al-Husseini was indicted by Yugoslavia for war crimes, but the Mufti was never tried because there was no way to extradite him and because the Allies were afraid of the storm in the Arab world if a 'hero' like Husseini was treated as a war criminal.The Arab nations, particularly Syria, Egypt and Iraq also became havens for a number of Nazi ex-officers, technicians and scientists.

Husseini's nephew, the Egyptian born Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Husseini, better known as Yasser Arafat continued his uncle's sordid legacy and always referred to the Mufti as 'our national hero.'

Towards the end of the exchange, I became emotional. I could no longer hear Mr. Horowitz speaking and so did not even hear his injection of Hezbollah’s credo of “rounding up” Jews in his last tangent. I could no longer contain my anger at being implicitly and improperly labeled a terrorist, an anti-Semite, and a proponent of genocide. The answer I was coerced into giving grossly misrepresented my beliefs and ideologies.

My answer, “for it,” in the context in which it was said does NOT mean “for” genocide. I was referring to his initial question that asked me for my position on Hamas, a topic that for his own political reasons he was relentless in pursuing. “For it” was not a legitimization of Hezbollah’s or anyone else’s credo for that matter that Jews should be exterminated. In fact, Mr. Horowitz’s intent was to entrap me with his barrage of questions so that he could avoid answering my question, and construe any answer that I would provide as anti-Semitic, genocidal hate speech in order to further his political agenda.

I am not a member of Hamas, nor have I ever given support to Hamas, nor do I agree their actions or stances wholesale, but I refused to offer Mr. Horowitz a blanket condemnation of Hamas that night. I felt that doing so would be a blanket condemnation of the Palestinian cause. I refused to throw the baby (the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people) out with the bathwater (Hamas.) In addition, Mr. Horowitz asked me to condemn Hamas as a genocidal organization; which to my limited knowledge on the subject, is another unsupported claim made by Mr. Horowitz.

Limited knowledge? Unsupported claim? After all the statements Hamas has made on the subject, not to mention their actions, is she serious? Perhaps Ms. Albahri needs to be reminded that Hamas has even codified its mission to kill all Jews worldwide in its Martyr's Oath, which all members swear to uphold. The Oath also quotes the Islamic scripture from the Hadith Sahih Muslim, Book 041, Number 6985, which quotes the very words of Mohammed on the subject: “The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."

Is Ms. Albari expecting us to believe that she is unaware of the Oath and the hadith quoted? If she really is that clueless, she needs to do some serious soul searching.

And then there's this:

..I condone Hamas in its ambition to liberate the Palestinian people. I condone Hamas as the duly elected representative government of the Palestinian people granted governance in an election overseen by our ex-President Jimmy Carter; and characterized as fair, open, and fully democratic. I condone Hamas in its desire to end the inhumane siege of the Gazan people. I condone Hamas in its struggle to free the 10,000 Palestinian men, women, and children unjustly locked away in Israeli prisons.

Here we get to the crux of the matter. Like Ms. Albahri, I agree that Hamas is the duly elected government of the Palestinian people, and by a comfortable majority. But what does that say about a majority of the Palestinian people, that they would enthusiastically endorse a genocidal organization who makes no secret of their aims? The Nazis, after all, were also democratically elected.

Why would any rational person expect Israel to make any sort of peace with that kind of regime?

What does it say about Ms. Albahri's belief system that she pines for the release of terrorists like Marwan Barghouti, who was convicted of five counts of murder in an Israeli civilian court like most of the inmates locked up in Israeli prisons? What does it say about her moral structure that she would want people like these released as 'freedom fighters'?

When it comes to genocidal, murderous organizations, you simply can't pick and choose the parts you like. Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian, kind to animals and to many of his human associates. The Nazis provided full employment in Germany,restored its national pride and rid it of the hated Versailles Treaty.

Just like Ms. Albahri, many Germans might have had paid a little lip service to qualms about the regime's excesses, but they justified supporting the Nazis because because they agreed with 'the greater goal' - and because, deep down, they agreed with the agenda.

That kind of position is not only intellectually bankrupt but morally indefensible and despicable.

Whether she realizes it or not, Ms. Albahri was pegged exactly right by David Horowitz. She's simply a Jew hater who perhaps has found a few 'diversity' minded individuals who are willing to overlook the clear message of the positions she advocates and allow her to mask her sentiments. You can't support groups that make murdering Jews a major policy goal in any way without being a Jew hater.

And truthfully, I have absolutely no problem with Ms. Albahri hating Jews. But I do wish she'd either own it or simply understand that she's become, in the memorable phrase of Vladimir Lenin, a useful idiot, a foot soldier for causes whose real agenda she chooses to remain clueless about.

It's one or the other.

Buy the ticket, take the ride.

Addendum: Anita Casavantes Bradford wrote to tell me that she is not a professor, but a Ph.D. candidate (ABD) in her last year of her dissertation and thus is a TA, not a professor. She wanted that clarified because she didn't want anyone to think she was misrepresenting herself.

please helps me write more gooder!


Anonymous said...

Thanks! Good analysis. Unfortunately, there are many more who are far worse than Ms. Albahri.

Rhymes With Right said...

I had to update and bump my piece on this incident to reflect her response. Still, I find it interesting -- and frightening -- that the UCSD administration and student body are not willing to leap into action over apparent advocacy of genocide by a student at an on-campus event in the same way they did over the juvenile theme of an off-campus party earlier this semester.

Freedom Fighter said...

The TA who corresponded with me said she 'appreciated my analysis' and made a few other remarks that - not to speak for her - lead me to believe she might be rethinking her defense of this student.

In any event, I requested that she show this to Ms. Albahri, because I would be interested in her reaction. I also invited Ms. Albahri to craft an intelligent response to this. I'd be surprised if she does respond, but we'll see what happens.


Toe said...

Fantastic commentary. Good job.

Karmafish said...

This is just sickening.

A student essentially calls for the genocide of the Jews and the university takes no action?

Jesus Christ, I got yanked before a student court at UCONN for the hideous crime of drinking a beer in dormitory common area, yet advocating the genocide of the Jews is a matter of diversity of opinion?

UCSD needs to do something and if it doesn't we need to hold the university to account.

This is simply unacceptable.

Ymarsakar said...

Just erase her comments and things will be better for freedom.

suek said...

Well...she _did_ admit that her knowledge was limited...


Shine said...

Unfortunately, this case is symbolic of the conflict as a whole.

On one side you have Horowitz, who is not willing to compromise on his view of Israel's detractors and outright enemies.

On the other side, you have Arabs with ties to Palestinians who absolutely REFUSE to acknowledge anything that Horowitz says.

So you have two people shouting at each other without actually listening.

And yet, and yet...the majority of individuals think pressuring Israel for "concessions" will end this stale mate. I don't see how, and I don't see why. But they persist in this erroneous belief.

I was at a party once and a college aged hipster guy had a tshirt on that said, "free palestine." My friends had to stop me from physically assaulting him.

There will never be peace. But I won't say the Jews are doomed. Just in for a never ending fight for survival.

Freedom Fighter said...

I won't say the Jews are doomed. Just in for a never ending fight for survival.

Hardly a new situation is it? But a lot more tolerable with a powerful and independent Jewish nation, no?

And yeah, far too many American Jews are clueless about that little factoid.

Anonymous said...

Stalemate will end only when Jesus comes to collect His nation. They are a chosen nation even though they broke the covenant.

Anonymous said...

Amen to that

Anonymous said...

Anonymous: Israel didn't enter into any covenant with God. It was singularly God's covenant with Abraham. Abraham was asleep when God made the covenant with Abraham; that He would honour the covenant with Abraham's descendants through the promised child Abraham would have with Sarah. God never goes back on His promises or covenants. The new covenant did not nullify the Abrahamic covenant, it expanded it. God does not change. God's covenant with the Jewish people did not depend on their obedience, but on God's faithfulness. He is the same yesterday,today and forever.

Rachel said...

God made the covenant with Abraham when Abraham was sleeping. As such, Abraham did not take part in the covenant. It was only God that committed to the covenant. The covenant was with Abraham's descendants through Isaac. The covenant did not depend on the Jewish people's obedience, but rather on God's faithfulness. The new covenant did not nullify the Abrahamic covenant, it expanded it. God cannot change his mind about the covenant He made with Abraham. God is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Rob said...

Hi Rachel,
I know what you're thinking of, but it wasn't the Covenant.

According to the Torah,Hashem made the covenant with Abraham not when he was sleeping but when he was prepared to sacrifice Isaac (Yitzhak) his son on Mt. Moriah. And BTW, Yitzhak, a young man in the prime of life willingly allowed his much older father to bind him on the altar.

According to the Akeidah, the prayer observant Jews say during Shacharis every morning that relates what is written about this in the Torah, an Angel of the Lord instructed Abraham not to lay hands on his son, and Abraham then observed a ram caught by his horns in a thicket, who Abraham then used as the offering.

Hashem then told Abraham 'by Myself I swear' (a phrase that never fails to move me) that he would bless Abraham and his descendants, that he would increase his offspring 'like the stars in the sky and the sands at the seashore', that his offspring would 'inherit the gates of their enemies'(by which he meant the land of Canaan, Zion's dwelling place), and that the nations of the world would bless themselves (or curse themselves, as the case might be) by his offspring.

If one looks at the incredible and unique 5775 years of Jewish survival and accomplishment, observes how the most powerful nations in the world have disappeared or seen their power and influence severely curtailed after persecuting the Jews, looked at the miracle of Israel's rebirth against all odds and not just its survival but its thriving, it's obvious that the Covenant was never broken and is still very much in force.

Le Shana Tovah Tikatevu,

Anonymous said...

My wish is for us to one day realize God has nothing to do with religion. Once we free ourselves from the rules of religion we will realize it is just right or wrong, good or bad, peace or war, love or hate.

Rob said...

Hi Anonymous,
Be careful what you wish for, my friend.

Without what you refer to as 'the rules of religion', there is no structure or reference point to decide what right or wrong, good or bad, love or hate really mean.They're simply subjective words.So G-d has everything to do with religion.

I'm a Jew. I believe that what you call 'the rules of religion' were given to us by G-d through Moses on Har Sinai and through revelations from G-d known as the Mishna, the Oral Torah.

To believe that is a stretch for a lot of people simply because it involves taking an honest look at what those rules really mean for you, and if they means something to you, giving up the rationalizations we all use to try and follow them as best we can.

Best of luck in your search.


Paula Silva said...

Oh dear, oh dear everyone hating each other when we could all live in peace in this vast precious planet

Geoff said...

Everyone has a right to their opinion and beliefs including Ms. Albahri. That said, I am daily becoming increasingly convinced that as long as people continue to believe in an invisible man in the sky there will continue to be hatred and bigotry and war. Religious differences have been used as justification for the slaughter of more innocent men, women, and children throughout history than any other reason or cause.

Victoria said...

Rob, yes there are structures and morals without religion. Hitler was a Christian btw, terrorists are really just true believers who follow what their book, written by men, says. Human's created morals, we uphold those standards and I'm offend you can't give us credit. I know I'm capable of intellectual thought, if we can find an atom I'm pretty sure we can figure out that it is in everyones best interest not to murder or rape each other. I was raised without even knowing religion was a thing until I was 6, now I'm a vegetarian and a member of students for a sustainable future. I choose not to be a glutton because I know it'll deplete our natural resources, I don't murder or rape people or plan genocidal acts or set women on fire for not birthing a son because I understand that they are people too, religion doesn't.

Anonymous said...

The death toll from secular National Socialism (Nazis,) Communism (Russia, China, Cambodia, etc) far exceeds people killed in the name of religion. Especially if you leave Islam out.

Rob said...

Hello Geoff,
Everyone has a right to their opinion and beliefs including Ms. Albahri.

I'm afraid I'm not quite with you here. Ms. Albahri is endorsing genocide and groups wishing to practice it. Or to put it another way, cheering on, aiding and abetting people who want to translate her beliefs into action.

Those are not 'beliefs' I think anyone has a right to.

Hello Victoria, I apologize for any offense you suffered.

The point is though, that the moral code you claim to adhere to is based very much on religious ethics and principles that have been around for centuries, and were not common before their advent. You are merely choosing to exercise these principles without G-d, which is certainly your right, but you can't deny where they came from if you're being intellectually honest, I think.

BTW, Hitler was raised a Catholic but became an atheist at a very young age (read Mein Kampf). Instead he substituted a moral code of his own devise that was deliberately designed to be divorced from Judeo-Christian ethics and did his best to impose it on the Third Reich.

The results are self-evident.

(and no, I'm certainly not calling you a Nazi!)

Thanks to both of you for dropping by.

Anonymous said...

"you can't deny where they came from if you're being intellectually honest, I think."

Yes, Rob, they clearly come from Ahura Mazda.

Anonymous said...

Victoria - don't fall into a fallacy of assuming the way you were raised is the 'natural' state of human moral instinct. You were likely raised by people who were raised by people who were raised by people who got their moral values from a religion. The natural state of human morality is not the same as a well-instilled moral atheist upbringing might lead you to believe.

Rob said...

I think you mean Zoroastrianism.

Judaism of course predates it (it was even around when Zoroastrianism's ancestor, Mithra was around)but yes, it's another religion that embraces some similar ethical principles.

You can call it un sandwich steak Suisse et pommes frites if you like, but it's still a hamburger and fries. ; )

Victoria said...

Okay so you're telling me that before a guy wrote a book telling people to follow ethics we didn't understand that we had to work as a community to survive which is how we survived. You're trying to claim that we went around raping, murdering and thieving from each other, seriously? I don't need religion to be a good person but if you do that says a lot more about you than anything. And to whom ever said non-secular (which you actually said secular meaning religious but I know that's not what you meant) people have killed more than secular you obviously don't know about the islamic genocide, christian genocide, catholic genocide and all the non-religious, religious and accused witches that were murder in the name of religion which contradicts what your book says in its commandments. I choose not to be blinded by myths and fables and instead choose reason and logic.

dg said...

Victoria is absolutely correct, society Has existed way Longer than organized religion. having societal rules is a survival instinct, yes, raping, murdering, brutalizing, and thieving existed just as it does today however our instincts for survival tell us how we should treat people in order to maintain a functioning society and Certain actions have negative impacts in how we feel or react to people and situations, so we naturally choose to follow those boundaries to prevent the breakdown of our society. That's not to say that there are not certain people Who lean more towards aggressive behaviour and those people often certainly do need religion or government to keep them in check because the thought of the punishment for their behaviors not being worth it is what keeps them from doing it. however, the fact remains that religion, unfortunately, Incites deep Passions and beliefs and tends to cause more harm than good in too many cases, because it is often used as a form of brainwashing and rationalizing a justification for a cause. (Whether that be the mom that abuses her child for their "impure thoughts" or the muslim that justifies murdering innocent people) The truth is that people have a very dificult time finding a path of moderation and passions exist with or without religion. So, while since the dawn of organized religion it has gradually become the big bad, without religion some other blind passion would pop up in its place because its easier to dive in head first and have a feeling of belonging than it is to stop and question things. But to say we would lose our morals without religion is ludicrous, morals come from self awareness, and our ability to empathize with others through our personal experiences , which in turn help our instincts of self preservation. So above all else, instinct, makes us enforce morals, not religion.

Anonymous said...

I read a lot, and thusly a lot of articles, but you're ending it on a HST quote has earned you an avid follower. Thanks for the words!

Chris Benard said...

WHy was this plain ans simple statement left out of your 'review' of her blog post?

"Allow me to begin by stating that I do NOT condone murder, I do NOT condone genocide, and I do NOT condone racism under any circumstance whatsoever against Jews or anyone else. "

It seems to be condemning terrorism to me...?

Rob said...

Actually, I believe that statement is in the video, Chris.

Here's the simple answer. Anyone who says they 'condemn terrorism' but won't condemn Hamas and Hezbollah is simply lying, because both are openly genocidal terrorist groups.

That's why Horowitz (with admirable clarity) cut to the chase and asked her if she condemned these terrorist groups unequivocally. She wouldn't.

Basically, she tried to get away with this hypocrisy with her cute little 'kumbaya' opening statement.

Horowitz refused to let her get away with it, and she revealed what a hateful anti-semite she is out of her own mouth.

You can't 'condemn violence and terrorism' but say it's fine as long as it's directed against certain groups or nationalities.

It;s the equivalent of saying 'I don't condone lynching, but I won't condemn the KKK and its OK if its just blacks in the South.'

Rob Miller

Lioness said...

Perfectly said. ^^

Lioness said...

God's will is not any religion at all. It is the lifestyle of loving our brothers and sisters as He has loved us...purely and unconditionally. That's what is all about. We should be living God's will. On a whole, we are not. Henceforth, there are consequences.

Anonymous said...

Man created religion; God has been around way longer than religion or the bible and will continue to be around way after religion is wiped out. That being said, morals came from God. Not religion. That is why the person who commented earlier said he was raised to have morals without religion, well of course. That is because morals came from God who has been around way before religion was ever created by man. People have confused religion and a relationship with God to be the same thing. In reality you can have religion without God and that is one of the main reasons why there are so many problems in this world today.

Louis Martinez said...

first i love this piece it was a great view of the ignorance of stupid people i was in Kosovo when malsovick was killing 1000's of non muslims just because they were in what he called his country for 6 months i had to sit and watch the slaughter of them i am glad that he is now dead and hope that all extreme muslims are killed as well now this may sound jsut as bad as them but i have seen thier terror up close and it needs to be stopped

Anonymous said...

Seven words. Thou shalt not kill, shame on you!

Rob said...

The phrase 'Thou shalt no kill' is not in the Bible, except perhaps in some liberation theology left wing comic book version.

The actual translation in both Hebrew and Greek is: "Thou Shalt Not Murder."

Very different.

The Torah definitely allows killing in self defense when combating evil.

Moses and the Hebrews were commanded to destroy the Amalekites, some of history's original terrorists who were raiding and and killing groups of weak and defenseless along with woman , children and the elderly that they caught unawares. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?. The story can be found in Exodus.

Jesus obviously agreed with that sentiment. In his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus declared outright that he had not come to alter one writ or comma of the Law. Since he was a rabbi, that meant Torah, which includes the command to fight and defeat evil in self-defense.

Bryce Beamer said...

Can G-d give me the last 5 minutes of my life back? @Rob

Rob said...

Maybe you should ask Him..but then, He might counter with how much of other people's time you've this comment ;)